DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 06/28/2026.
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 11, 26-27 and 34 have been amended.
Claims 4, 6, 9-10, 12-23 and 33 have been cancelled.
Claim 35 has been newly added.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 11, 24-32 and 35 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 29 is dependent on cancelled claim 10. Appropriate correction 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 1-3, 7-8, 11, 24-32 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 24-33 and 35 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine), claim 11 is directed to a method (i.e., a process) and claims 34 is directed to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a manufacture). Accordingly, claims 1-3, 7-8, 11, 24-32 and 35 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories
Step 2A - Prong One:
An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea.
Specifically, independent claim 1:
A system, comprising:
a virtual reality (VR) device worn by an object;
at least one storage medium including a set of instructions; and
at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage medium, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is directed to cause the system to perform operations including:
in response to detecting call instruction of virtual caregiver information issued by the object through the VR device, calling a virtual caregiver and simultaneously adjusting an operational parameter of a medical device, wherein the virtual caregiver information includes accompany information associated with a caregiver, the caregiver is related to an object, the accompany information includes visual information, auditory information, and tactile information, the visual information enables the object to see the caregiver through a display device of the VR device, the auditory information enables the object to hear sound of the caregiver through the VR device, the tactile information enables the object to feel touch of the caregiver through the VR device, and the call instruction of virtual caregiver information is obtained by:
directing, by the at least one processor, a projection device of the VR device to project and display virtual caregiver information of different people, virtual caregiver information of different types, virtual caregiver information of different forms;
detecting, by the at least one processor, an eye gaze direction of the object in real time,
determining, by the at least one processor, a POI or an ROI based on the gaze direction;
determining, by the at least one processor, virtual caregiver information projected at the POI or ROI as the target virtual caregiver information; and
determining, by the at least one processor, the call instruction of the target virtual caregiver information;
directing, by the at least one processor, the display device of the VR device to display the virtual caregiver information based on the call instruction;
obtaining, by the at least one processor, feature information of the object;
determining, by the at least one processor, state information of the object based on the feature information using a state determination model, wherein the state determination model includes a convolutional neural network (CNN) model, and the state information includes at least one of an emotional state, a physiological state, or a gaze state of the object;
determining, by the at least one processor, a control instruction associated with the operational parameter of the medical device performed on the object based on the state information by the medical device, wherein the operational parameter including at least one of a scanning time, a scanning sequence, a scanning site, a scanning speed, a scanning intensity, or a system parameter of the medical device; and
performing, base on the control instruction sending by the at least one processor and an adjusted operational parameter, a medical scanning or a radiotherapy operation by the medical device.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: (a) “certain methods of organizing human activity” because projecting medical image guidance with an associated object to virtual caregiver, adjusting an operational parameter of a medical device, obtaining a call instruction, during a medical scanning or a radiology operation, determining a control instruction and sensing an adjusted operational parameter are a part of a medical workflow shared among individuals, which are managing human behavior/interactions between people. Furthermore, the foregoing underlined limitations constitute (b) “a mental process” because associating an object with virtual, visual, auditory, tactile caregiver information, detecting a gaze direction and determining a point of interest (POI) or region of interest (ROI) based on the gaze direction, determining state information of the object based on feature information, determining a control instruction are observations/evaluations/analyses that can be performed in the human mind or with a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim describes at least one abstract idea.
In relation to claims 2-3, 5, 7-8, 10 and 24-33, these claims merely recite determining steps such as: claim 2 - display a scanning protocol associated with the object based on a call instruction of the scanning protocol and obtaining a feedback of the object on the scanning protocol, claim 3 – adjusting the virtual caregiver information based on the feedback, claim 5 - the feature information includes at least one of an image, a video, an audio, or a physiological signal associated with the object, claim 7 - obtaining, twin data of the object being a stereoscopic virtual projection of the object in the virtual space, determining the guidance datathe guidance data based on the twin data of the object and the twin data of the medical device, claim 10 – obtaining a control instruction from the control terminal device associated with an operational parameter of a medical operation of a medical device and transmitting the control instruction, claim 24 - determining, based on the image data, a pose of the object and a positional relationship between the object and a medical device and generating the twin data of the object based on the positional relationship between the object and the medical device, claim 25 – obtaining personal information and imaging requirement information of the object, the personal information including age, height, weight, medical history, and gender of the object, the imaging requirement information including an organ structure of a scanning site of the object; and generating the twin data of the object through simulation based on the personal information and the image requirement information of the object, claim 26 - obtaining state information of the medical device in real time, wherein the state information of the medical device reflects system parameter information of the medical device, generating rendering data of the medical device based on the state information of the medical device, and determining the rendering data as the twin data of the medical device, claim 27 – determining a state of the medical device corresponding to the operation terminal device and the object, the state including a position and a posture of the object, a position of the medical device, and a relative positional relationship between the object and the medical device, determining whether the object is located in a target area and a target position and generating the position guidance data when the object is not in the target area or the target position and generating the posture guidance data when the object is located in the target area and the target position but is not in a target posture, claim 28 - obtaining twin data of an operation page in response to receiving the login request wherein the operation page includes configuring an operational parameter of the medical device and controlling the medical device to acquire a medical image, and the twin data of the operation page displayed in the virtual space is consistent with a control page of the medical device, claim 29 - determining operation contents triggered by the medical worker through the twin data corresponding to the operation page and determining the control instruction based on the operation contents, claim 30 - the state determination model includes an emotional state determination model, a gaze state determination model, and a physiological state determination model, the emotional state determination model, the gaze state determination model, and the physiological state determination model are three submodules of the state determination model, claim 31 - obtaining a plurality of first sample images labeled with the emotional state, a plurality of second sample images labeled with the gaze state, and a plurality of sets of sample physiological signals labeled with the physiological state and obtaining the state determination model by training an initial machine learning model using the plurality of first sample images, the plurality of second sample images, and the plurality of sets of sample physiological signals, claim 32 - determining a first waveform, a second waveform, and a third waveform corresponding to different amplitudes, different periods, and different shapes based on historical ECG signals of a plurality of different objects, wherein the first waveform corresponds to virtual caregiver information of an immediate family member, the second waveform corresponds to virtual caregiver information of a collateral relative or a friend, and the third waveform corresponds to virtual caregiver information of a medical worker, comparing a real-time ECG signal of the object with the first waveform, the second waveform, and the third waveform to determine one of the first waveform, the second waveform, and the third waveform matched with the real- time ECG signal of the object and determining the virtual caregiver information corresponding to the matched waveform as the target virtual caregiver information of the object, claim 33 - a head region of the object is moved into a scanning region of a medical device, directing the projection device of the VR device to project the virtual caregiver information onto an inner wall of the medical device based on the call instruction and when the head region of the object is moved outside the scanning region of the medical device, directing, by the at least one processor, the projection device of the VR device to project the virtual caregiver information outside a scanning cavity of the medical device based on the call instruction and claim 35 - directing, by the at least one processor, the medical device to operate according to at least one of different scanning rates, different scanning times, different scanning sequences, or different sampling modes based on the emotional state.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The limitations of claims 1, 11 and 34, as drafted is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system, at least one processor, at least one storage medium including a set of instructions, a control terminal device, an operational terminal device, a display device, a virtual reality (VR) device and an operational terminal device, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation within a health care environment in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding the additional limitations, “a medical device”, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and are mere instructions to apply the above-noted at least one abstract idea (Id.).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the system, processor, one storage medium including a set of instructions, control terminal device, operational terminal device, display device, virtual reality (VR) device and operational terminal device are recited at high levels of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of receiving data/inputs, determining and providing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components.
Regarding the additional limitations “a state determination model”, “a gaze state determination model”, and “a convolutional neural network (CNN) model”, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation amount to merely using a computer to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Regarding the additional limitation “obtaining a call instruction of virtual caregiver information ……” and “obtaining … feature information of the object”, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant pre-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvements in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or us the above-noted implement/use to above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §2106.05). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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 the integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, in representative independent claim 1, regarding the additional limitations of the system, processor, one storage medium including a set of instructions, control terminal device, operational terminal device, display device, virtual reality (VR) device and operational terminal device, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 11 and 34 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 7-8, 11, 24-32 and 35are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea, determined the POI or ROI by analyzing images read in real time using a state determination model based on convolution neural network (CNN) model. see pgs. 15-19 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed invention is still reciting abstract steps. Using the convolution neural network (CNN) model as claimed is an additional element. Firstly, it is unclear what feature information of a patient (subject) is being applied to the CNN model and how the patient’s gaze state is being analyzed. Nonetheless, the analysis of the gaze using a neural network is recited at high level generality and the specification does not describe what sample images are being captured and how it’s done, see paragraphs 86-87 and 97.
Applicant argues that amended claims 1 and 11 integrate the abstract concept into a practical application, just as claims 2 of Example 45 does, addresses the problem of “repeated scans caused by the patient’s ability to cooperate effectively” and improving the core functions of the medical system. see pgs. 21-28 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
Here, Applicant is just reciting claim limitations and features, without explained technology solving a technical problem. No improvements to obtaining visual, audio, tactile information, virtual images, position or posture guidance, the chamber a patient lays within a MRI machine, preparing medical scans or radiotherapy and the functioning of the computer itself have been genuinely set forth in the instant case and are nonetheless directed towards improving the abstract idea and not the computer itself — that is, the recited invention may improve facilitating entry (i.e. the abstract idea), but there is no evidence to show that it improves the structural or functional properties of the computer itself, outside of improving the computer specifically for implementing the abstract idea. In fact, obtaining visual, audio, tactile information, virtual images, position or posture guidance, logging in, preparing medical scans or radiotherapy are operations any generic computer is merely using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea (saying “apply it”) and is merely using the computer in the manner in which it was designed to be used, i.e., performing generic computer functions.
Furthermore, the VR device as recited is an additional element used for performing standard VR functions executing a standard or software functions, which is considered a conventional data-retrieval concept and managing or organizing information.
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, see pages 31-49, filed 06/28/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 of claims 1-3, 7-8, 11, 24-32 and 35 has been withdrawn. The Malchano (WO 2023/177907 A1) reference does not teach creating or carrying out any control instructions for a medical device’s settings, nor does Malchano teach performing any medical scanning or radiotherapy operation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TERESA S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-5509. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:30 am -6:30 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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/T.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3687 09/23/2026
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687
