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 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 limitation(s) is/are: “chest compression module” in claim 3, “rescue breath module” in claim 4, “software module” in claim 9, “feedback module” and “haptic glove device” in claim 11, “module for adjusting the difficulty level of the simulations” in claim 12, and “performance tracking and analysis module” in claim 15.
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.
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In particular, claim 1 recites the limitation “analyzing the detected hand gestures to determine conformity with predetermined medical procedure steps, wherein the analysis includes assessing hand poses, movements, and interactions with virtual medical instruments within the VR environment.” The relevant portion of the specification describes the analysis as:
[033] Step 108 is crucial as it involves analyzing the detected hand gestures against the procedural steps required in the medical scenario. The system's software module compares the user's gestures to the correct execution of the medical procedure. This real-time analysis allows the system to provide immediate feedback on the user's performance, ensuring that each action is carried out with precision.
Spec. ¶33. The disclosure, at best, explains that software module can compare the detected hand gesture with correct execution of the medical procedure. The original disclosure fails to provide any algorithm, example, guidance, or explanation of any specific step of medical procedure, detected hand gestures of hand poses, movements, and interactions, and how to analyze the detected gesture can be determined of conformity based on comparison. Although the VR gesture detection techniques were well-known, the ordinary person in the art would not determine Applicant had the possession of the claimed features by mere single line assertion of the comparison of the user's gestures to the correct execution.
Also, claim limitations “chest compression module” in claim 3, “rescue breath module” in claim 4, “software module” in claim 9, “feedback module” and “haptic glove device” in claim 11, “module for adjusting the difficulty level of the simulations” in claim 12, and “performance tracking and analysis module” in claim 15 invoke 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. In particular, the specification generally states “Key features include modules for various medical scenarios like chest compression, rescue breath with bag-valve-mask, defibrillation, and medication injection, each designed to ensure accuracy and fidelity in replicating medical techniques” without providing any algorithm or process how to perform the claimed functions of the modules. See Spec. ¶10. Regarding the software module, the specification merely describes “[t]he system's software module compares the user's gestures to the correct execution of the medical procedure” without providing any algorithm or process how to perform the claimed feature. See Spec. ¶33; see also supra 112(a) written description rejection. The specification does not even cite any single instance of “feedback module.” Regarding the “haptic glove device,” the specification merely describes “haptic glove device” in two instances without providing any specific support what those devices are. See Spec. ¶¶ 11, 37.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the correctness of the hand gestures" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the reason, dependent claims are rejected as well.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "as determined by the analysis of the hand gestures" in lines 16-17. It is unclear what is determined because claim 1 does not explicitly recite any active step of “determining by the analysis.” It is noted that claim 1 requires “analyzing the gestures to determine conformity” but never requires conformity to be explicitly determined. For the reason, dependent claims are rejected as well.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the chest compression module" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the rate and depth of chest compressions" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the adherence to predetermined compression techniques" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the rescue breath module" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “EC" maneuver in line 2. This term “EC” is Applicant’s own terminology. However, neither claim nor specification defines what the term’s definition is.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the medical scenario simulation" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the successful completion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the medical procedure" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim q recites “medical procedures” but it does not provide an antecedent basis for the single “medical procedure” as claimed in claim 5. For similar reason, claims 6 and 13 are rejected as well.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the pose and movement of each finger and joint of the user's hands" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the hand tracking technology" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the user's technique" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For similar reason, claim 14 is rejected as well.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the tactile sensation" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the simulations" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, the limitation “the difficulty level of the simulations” also lacks its antecedent basis for similar reason.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the user's experience or proficiency level" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the full simulation" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the user's performance and adherence to medical protocols" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For similar reason, claim 14 is rejected as well.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the simulation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For similar reason, claim 15 is rejected as well.
Claim limitations “chest compression module” in claim 3, “rescue breath module” in claim 4, “software module” in claim 9, “feedback module” and “haptic glove device” in claim 11, “module for adjusting the difficulty level of the simulations” in claim 12, and “performance tracking and analysis module” in claim 15 invoke 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. In particular, the specification generally states “Key features include modules for various medical scenarios like chest compression, rescue breath with bag-valve-mask, defibrillation, and medication injection, each designed to ensure accuracy and fidelity in replicating medical techniques” without providing any algorithm or process how to perform the claimed functions of the modules. See Spec. ¶10. Regarding the software module, the specification merely describes “[t]he system's software module compares the user's gestures to the correct execution of the medical procedure” without providing any algorithm or process how to perform the claimed feature. See Spec. ¶33; see also supra 112(a) written description rejection. The specification does not even cite any single instance of “feedback module.” Regarding the “haptic glove device,” the specification merely describes “haptic glove device” in two instances without providing any specific support what those devices are. See Spec. ¶¶ 11, 37. 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.
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.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1 recite(s): a computer-implemented method for conducting medical training using virtual reality (VR), the method comprising:
providing a VR environment through a VR headset equipped with hand tracking sensors, wherein the VR environment includes a virtual human model simulating a patient in a medical scenario;
detecting, via the hand tracking sensors, hand gestures of a user interacting with the virtual human model, wherein the hand gestures correspond to medical procedures relevant to the simulated medical scenario;
analyzing the detected hand gestures to determine conformity with predetermined medical procedure steps, wherein the analysis includes assessing hand poses, movements, and interactions with virtual medical instruments within the VR environment;
providing real-time feedback to the user based on the analysis of the hand gestures, wherein the feedback includes visual, auditory, or haptic signals indicating the correctness of the hand gestures in performing the medical procedures; and
progressing the medical scenario within the VR environment in response to the user correctly performing a sequence of the medical procedure steps, as determined by the analysis of the hand gestures.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer-implemented,” “VR environment,” “VR headset,” “hand tracking sensors,” “virtual human model,” and “providing feedback includes visual, auditory, or haptic signals,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a medical professor assessing trainee’s level of competency in medical trainings by analyzing the trainee’s hand motions.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
The non-highlighted aforementioned, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the aforementioned additional elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a medical professor assessing trainee’s level of competency in medical trainings by analyzing the trainee’s hand motions.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “computer-implemented,” “VR environment,” “VR headset,” “hand tracking sensors,” “virtual human model,” and “providing feedback includes visual, auditory, or haptic signals.”
The “computer-implemented” in the aforementioned steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The “VR environment” and “virtual human model” in the aforementioned steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The claim recites the following additional elements: “VR headset,” “hand tracking sensors,” and “providing feedback includes visual, auditory, or haptic signals.” The additional element step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does 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 element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally linking the use of the aforementioned concept to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned step(s) amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the aforementioned step(s) was/were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that the additional element(s) is/are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned step(s) is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of displaying information to perform the aforementioned step(s) amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the aforementioned step(s) was/were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that the additional element(s) is/are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., and Ameranth, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(g) indicate that displaying data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned step(s) is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-15 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites the additional limitations of “virtual bag-valve-mask” in claim 4, “virtual display screen” or “audio signal” in claim 5, “visual indicators and text labels” in claim 6, “software module” in claim 9, “hand tracking technology” in claim 10, “haptic glove device” in claim 11, “AI-driven virtual instructor” in claim 14, which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, insignificant extra-solution activity, or that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. The additional element of using “software module” and “AI-driven virtual instructor” to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, the additional element of “virtual bag-valve-mask” and “virtual display screen” or “audio signal” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity or well-known, routine, and conventional activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the aforementioned step(s) “visual indicators and text labels”, “hand tracking technology”, and “haptic glove device” was/were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that the additional element(s) is/are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here), and the Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., and Ameranth, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(g) indicate that displaying data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that the aforementioned additional elements are well-known, routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned step(s) is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jimenez et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0215780), hereinafter Jimenez in view of Corathers et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0078930), hereinafter Corathers.
Regarding claim 1, Jimenez discloses a computer-implemented method for conducting medical training using virtual reality (VR) (Abstract), the method comprising:
providing a VR environment through a VR headset equipped with hand tracking sensors (¶32: “The interactive, computer-generated experience may involve virtual reality features”; ¶30: “The headpiece 140 may be a heads-up display, smart eyewear such as Google Glass, or smart goggles such as Oculus Rift. The hand coverings 142 may be fingered gloves covering the entire hand, fingerless gloves leaving the fingertips free, wristwatch type of devices, and the like.”), wherein the VR environment includes a virtual human model simulating a patient in a medical scenario (¶34: “the headpiece 140 may display virtual reality feature(s) representative of a scenario… the augmented reality feature(s) may interact with[] the visual features generated by the image projection mechanism 130.”);
detecting, via the hand tracking sensors, hand gestures of a user interacting with the virtual human model, wherein the hand gestures correspond to medical procedures relevant to the simulated medical scenario (¶35: “During the simulation session, the hand covering(s) 142 can generate positional data that specifies the position of the hand(s) and/or finger(s) of the learner 110.”);
analyzing the detected hand gestures to determine conformity with predetermined medical procedure steps, wherein the analysis includes assessing hand poses, movements, and interactions with virtual medical instruments within the VR environment (¶74: “After the simulation session has been completed, a performance review mechanism (e.g., performance review mechanism 160 of FIG. 1) can review data indicative of the action(s) of the active participant during the simulation session (step 804). The data may be acquired from the recording device, headpiece, hand covering(s), piece(s) of medical equipment, etc. In some embodiments, the performance review mechanism generates a report that specifies whether the active participant acted in accordance with the appropriate medical protocol(s) (step 805). Such a determination can be made by comparing the action(s) of the active participant to those that are required by the appropriate medical protocol(s). Some embodiments of the report specify whether the active participant was in full compliance (e.g., the report may specify whether the active participant either passed or failed), while other embodiments of the report specify the aspect(s) in which full compliance was not achieved.”);
providing real-time feedback to the user based on the analysis of the hand gestures, wherein the feedback indicating the correctness of the hand gestures in performing the medical procedures (805 in FIG. 8; ¶74: “the performance review mechanism generates a report that specifies whether the active participant acted in accordance with the appropriate medical protocol(s) (step 805).”); and
progressing the medical scenario within the VR environment in response to the user correctly performing a sequence of the medical procedure steps, as determined by the analysis of the hand gestures (¶39: “a state engine may be able to readily traverse the scripted scenario as the learner 110 performs the appropriate action(s)”).
Jimenez does not explicitly disclose the feedback comprises real-time feedback includes visual, auditory, or haptic signals.
Corathers teaches virtual reality training simulator (Abstract) comprising real-time feedback includes visual, auditory, or haptic signals (¶35: “The virtual reality system 10 may include a haptic glove 58. The haptic glove 58 provide haptic feedback to the hand 12 of the user wearing the haptic glove.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the invention in Jimenez by adding the virtual reality training features as taught in Corathers because “[t]he haptic glove 58 may be any suitable device for supplying haptic (also referred to as tactile) feedback to a user” (¶38 of Corathers).
Regarding claim 2, Jimenez further discloses that the medical procedures include Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and the hand gestures include motions for chest compression, manual bagging, defibrillation, and medication injection (¶61: “In an example of CPR event, the actions of the hands can be used to assess the learner's performance of compressions, checking of pulse, etc.”).
Regarding claim 3, Jimenez further discloses that the chest compression module includes monitoring the rate and depth of chest compressions and providing feedback to the user based on the adherence to predetermined compression techniques (¶60: “a predetermined pattern may specify that repeated, small vertical movements of both hands is indicative of chest compressions. As another example, a predetermined pattern may specify that repeated, small horizontal movements of both hands is indicative of the Heimlich maneuver. At a high level, the actions performed by the learner 110 may be determined or inferred through pattern recognition.”).
Regarding claim 4, Jimenez further discloses that the rescue breath module involves the user performing an "EC" maneuver on a virtual bag-valve-mask to simulate manual ventilation (¶60: “small horizontal movements of both hands is indicative of the Heimlich maneuver”; it is noted that the term “EC” maneuver is rejected as indefinite; see supra 112(b) rejection).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jimenez and Corathers further discloses that the medical scenario simulation includes a virtual display screen or an audio signal to confirm the successful completion of a step in the medical procedure (Corathers, ¶37: “When the user feels a burr on the highlighted portion, the processor circuitry 20 may highlight on the display as the next object 50 a surface processing tool of the tools 28 for removing the burr. The processor circuitry 20 may also highlight on the display as the target location 56 the highlighted portion including the burr.”).
Regarding claim 6, Jimenez further discloses providing guidance to the user on the sequence and method of carrying out each step of the medical procedure, including visual indicators and text labels for medical tools within the VR environment (¶37: “The system 100 (and, more specifically, the scenario generation mechanism 170) may determine how to guide the learner 110 through a scripted scenario or an unscripted scenario based on the heart rhythm as indicated by the EKG machine.”).
Regarding claim 7, Jimenez further discloses that the virtual human model is capable of simulating various medical conditions including cardiac arrest and post-resuscitation conditions (¶45: “a scenario designed to test awareness of cardiac protocols may include a first route in which heart rate decreases by a predetermined amount, a second route in which the decrease in heart rate is accompanied by a decrease in blood pressure, etc. The suite of scenarios 330 can be derived from standard medical protocols, such as Advanced Adult Cardiac Life Support (AACLS) and others described earlier. An example in the AACLS is the Adult Cardiac Arrest Algorithm which, in some editions, prescribes the choice between using shock from a defibrillator and using cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) based on biometrics from the patient.”).
Regarding claim 8, Jimenez further discloses that the hand tracking sensors are capable of detecting the pose and movement of each finger and joint of the user's hands (¶35: “During the simulation session, the hand covering(s) 142 can generate positional data that specifies the position of the hand(s) and/or finger(s) of the learner 110.”).
Regarding claim 9, Jimenez further discloses that the VR environment is controlled by a software module on the headset processor, which interprets hand tracking data to control interactions based on the medical training simulations (¶35: “During the simulation session, the hand covering(s) 142 can generate positional data that specifies the position of the hand(s) and/or finger(s) of the learner 110.”).
Regarding claim 10, Jimenez further discloses that the medical procedures include performing a physical examination using techniques such as auscultation and percussion, with the hand tracking technology evaluating the user's technique (¶36: “information representative of the simulated medical situation may be conveyed via a digital stethoscope, digital blood pressure monitor, etc.”; ¶37: “each piece of medical equipment 180 may be a normal, functional piece of medical equipment that captures biometrics from the manikin 120 or some other object, such as the heartbeat sensed by the learner 110 through an ordinary, passive stethoscope from the surface of the manikin when the hand position is over the chest of the manikin or the heart rhythm discovered by the learner 110 by observing an EKG machine.”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Jimenez and Corathers further discloses that the system includes a feedback module for coordinating with a haptic glove device for providing haptic feedback to the user, simulating the tactile sensation associated with the medical procedures being performed in the VR environment (Corathers, ¶36: “That is, when the user interacts with the highlighted portion and the highlighted portion includes the burr, the processor circuitry 20 may cause the haptic glove 58 to provide haptic feedback signifying the existence of the burr. For example, the haptic feedback may feel to the hand 12 of the user as if the user ran their hand across a surface including a bump (i.e., like there is a burr on the surface the user ran her hand across).”).
Regarding claim 12, Jimenez further discloses a module for adjusting the difficulty level of the simulations based on the user's experience or proficiency level, allowing for tailored training experiences ranging from beginner to advanced scenarios (¶39: “the state engine may be given the flexibility to alter a partially scripted scenario in real time (e.g., as the learner 110 completes the simulation session). For example, the state engine may dynamically choose between different paths of a multi-path script based on the behavior of the learner 110.”).
Regarding claim 13, Jimenez further discloses that the VR environment includes an interactive tutorial mode, guiding the user through each step of the medical procedure before entering the full simulation, thereby enhancing the user's understanding and preparation (¶37: “The system 100 (and, more specifically, the scenario generation mechanism 170) may determine how to guide the learner 110 through a scripted scenario or an unscripted scenario based on the heart rhythm as indicated by the EKG machine.”).
Regarding claim 14, Jimenez further discloses that the system incorporates an Al-driven virtual instructor that provides real-time guidance and corrections during the simulation, based on the user's performance and adherence to medical protocols (¶37: “The system 100 (and, more specifically, the scenario generation mechanism 170) may determine how to guide the learner 110 through a scripted scenario or an unscripted scenario based on the heart rhythm as indicated by the EKG machine.”).
Regarding claim 15, Jimenez further discloses a performance tracking and analysis module that records and analyzes the user's actions during the simulation, providing detailed feedback and recommendations for improvement post-simulation (¶60: “For example, the hand covering 142 could include a recording device designed to generate audio content, image content, video content, or any combination thereof. In an embodiment where the recording device is designed to generate image content or video content, the recording device may be oriented toward the fingers such that action(s) performed by the learner 110 can be observed, analyzed, etc. Such analysis may involve tracking the positions and movements of the hands of the learner 110, such that the actions performed by the learner 110—such as touching the manikin 120, pressing on the manikin 120, or lifting the manikin 120—can be identified.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J HONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0993. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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 Vasat can be reached at (571) 270-7625. 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.
THOMAS J. HONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/THOMAS J HONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715