DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Remarks received on July 8, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending with no claims canceled, claims 1-10 and 12-13 currently amended, and claims 16-20 newly presented.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao [US20160295038A1] and Schwindt [US20190259304A1].
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Rao discloses:
A system for simulating infant interactions, the system comprising:
a display (Rao, [0010], “the mobile device/intelligent electronic glasses/headset may display content on a variety of displays and surfaces.” and Rao, Fig. 1, Display 101); and
at least one processor,
wherein the at least one processor is programmed to (Rao, Fig 1 and [0157], “The mobile device/intelligent electronic glasses/headset is enabled with the capability to acquire images by built in camera or external means 109, send 110, receive 111, process with a built in processor 112, store information locally 113, recognize and compare image and other patterns 114, with the composite functions being represented by 108 for providing the needed functionality for wired or wireless communication of images and other information.”):
receive input to add a simulation state (Rao, [0157], “receive 111”. The system is receiving input from the image entity 120 and its various sub-components as seen in Figure 1. Rao discloses adding various simulation states, such as displaying: image, audio, and video in [0158]-[0159].);
receive input setting parameters associated with the simulation state (Rao, [0157], “receive 111”. The system is receiving input for setting one or more parameters associated with the state as disclosed in [0109]: “enable an image to be dynamically constructed and or deconstructed as a virtual digital image entity by software means of the image itself and or in association with other related parameters such as voice, text, data and other related information.”);
cause content to be presented based on the parameters associated with the simulation state via the display (See citation directly above where the parameters are utilized in displaying content. Through the parameters, such as voice, text, data, and other related information, the image entity is displayed.);
save the parameters associated with the simulation state in a memory (Rao, [0157], “store information locally 113”); and
receive a selection of the simulation state (Rao, [0031], “a user may select to activate a rear camera so that it is displayed in the left or right lens.” In this example, Rao discloses a user selecting a component to set the state of visualization when simulating.).
The Examiner would like to note that various portions, but not all, of the cited prior art are not explicitly for the purposes of monitoring and interacting with an infant. However, the prior art discloses a system capable of monitoring and interacting with an infant. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that Rao discloses the elements cited above and the invention capable of being used with an infant (Rao, [0137], “As an example, the system may allow for a baby to be monitored by the camera and interacted with a remote person such as a parent, baby sitter, or teacher using a local projector.”), but Rao does not disclose the invention being used on an infant to the same degree as the currently presented claims.
Schwindt, however, discloses:
a simulation state associated with an infant (Schwindt, [0007], “a patient simulator, in particular a premature baby, newborn or child simulator”);
the parameters comprising a physiological parameter, a visual parameter, and a simulation parameter (Schwindt, [0103], “The control of the overall simulation system by a trainer is performed via the graphical user interface 72. Said user interface enables the trainer to input the general conditions for the training scenario.); and
in response to receiving the selection of the simulation state, cause a simulated infant in the simulation state to be presented based on the parameters (Schwindt, [0103], “The control of the overall simulation system by a trainer is performed via the graphical user interface 72. Said user interface enables the trainer to input the general conditions for the training scenario. In the course of the exercise, the desired pathological changes are controlled there, and the measures taken by the trainee can be visualized to the trainer on the user interface by visualizing the sensor data of the system. To this end, the parameters and the individual functions of the simulator 1, such as respiration and heartbeat, are initially transmitted to the simulation computer 74 before the corresponding control commands for the patient simulator 1 are generated there.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simulated various medical parameters for preparing trainees in the medical field for treating infants as in Schwindt in the system executing the method of Rao with the motivation of offering an anatomically accurate simulation of an infant to more aptly prepare aspiring medical students as taught by Schwindt over that of Rao.
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), Rao/Schwindt discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
receive, while the simulated infant is presented in the simulation state based on the parameters, an indication that user input has been received (Rao, In [0031] and [0137] as cited above, the indication of user input is the response of the system by displaying the camera feed. And Schwindt, [0103], “The control of the overall simulation system by a trainer is performed via the graphical user interface 72. Said user interface enables the trainer to input the general conditions for the training scenario. In the course of the exercise, the desired pathological changes are controlled there, and the measures taken by the trainee can be visualized to the trainer on the user interface by visualizing the sensor data of the system. To this end, the parameters and the individual functions of the simulator 1, such as respiration and heartbeat, are initially transmitted to the simulation computer 74 before the corresponding control commands for the patient simulator 1 are generated there.”);
select a second simulation state based on the user input, the second simulation state associated with second parameters, the second parameters comprising a physiological parameter, a second visual parameter, and a second simulation parameter (See citations in claim 1); and
cause the simulated infant to be presented in the second simulation state based on the second parameters (See citations in claim 1.).
Regarding the claim limitations that introduce a “second” version of an element previously claimed, as discussed in MPEP 2144.04, Section VI, Part B, the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. This rationale applies to the claims presented below with similar recitations.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Regarding claim 3 (Currently Amended), Rao/Schwindt discloses:
The system of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
transmit the second parameters associated with the second simulation state to a remote computing device (Rao, [0137], “FIG. 16 shows a hand interacting with an intelligent table, where the table has a touch sensitive display.” As also discussed in claim 2, the intelligent table may be interacted with by the user. The touch sensitive display, as displayed in Fig 13 includes various parameters, such as text parameters, which are transmitted to the system during user interaction. And Schwindt, [0104], “The control elements enable the “remote control” of the simulation system via the interlayer of the simulation computer 74.”).
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Rao/Schwindt discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
receive, from a remote computing device while the simulated infant is presented in the simulation state based on the parameters (Schwindt, [0103]), an image of the simulated infant being presented by the remote computing device (Schwindt, [0103] and [0104]); and
present the image of the simulated infant via the display (In the cited scenario, Rao discloses using, “a local projector”. However, Rao also discloses using “[intelligent] electronic glasses” and “mobile devices” for presenting content.).
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Rao/Schwindt discloses:
The system of claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
receive, via a user interface, a selection of a user interface element associated with the image of the simulated infant (Rao, [0135], “FIG. 14. shows a hand of an individual as viewed through the display of an intelligent electronic glasses or headset. The keyboard may be shown in the display and not actually projected onto the hand, thereby enabling a virtual projection onto the hand in which the keyboard as shown is super-imposed onto the image of hand and viewed through a display.”); and
save an annotation associated with the image in the memory based on the selection of the user interface element (Rao, [0044], “a mobile device may be used and may display on the screen images acquired from a separate camera such as those on a pair of glasses where the images are annotated with content”).
Regarding claim 6 (Currently Amended), Rao discloses:
A system for simulating infant interactions, the system comprising:
a head mounted display (Rao, “[Intelligent] electronic glasses” as cited above and seen in Figs 12-15, 17-21, 25-27, and 31-32.) comprising:
a display (Rao, Fig 14, Display 1408); and
at least one processor,
wherein the at least one processor is programmed to:
join a simulation (Rao, [0137], “the system may allow for a baby to be monitored by the camera and interacted with a remote person such as a parent, baby sitter, or teacher using a local projector.”);
receive content associated with the simulation from a server (Rao, [0011], “It is an aspect of the present disclosure to enable image based communication between mobile device/intelligent electronic glasses/headset, distributed image sensors, stationary devices, and servers by wired or wireless communication means.”);
cause the content to be presented via the display such that the content is anchored at a location corresponding to a physical representation (Rao, Fig 24 and [0145], “Food imagery may be processed for image recognition and nutritional value using a local or network server.” Content pulled from a server is overlayed on various objects where the objects are identified via object recognition.);
The Examiner would like to note that various portions, but not all, of the cited prior art are not explicitly for the purposes of monitoring and interacting with an infant. However, the prior art discloses a system capable of monitoring and interacting with an infant. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that Rao discloses the elements cited above and the invention capable of being used with an infant (Rao, [0137], “As an example, the system may allow for a baby to be monitored by the camera and interacted with a remote person such as a parent, baby sitter, or teacher using a local projector.”), but Rao does not disclose the invention being used on an infant to the same degree as the currently presented claims.
Schwindt, however, discloses:
a simulation state associated with an infant (Schwindt, [0007], “a patient simulator, in particular a premature baby, newborn or child simulator”)
the parameters comprising a physiological parameter, a visual parameter, and a simulation parameter (Schwindt, [0012], “The calculation of the current volume is, for instance, based on an adapted algorithm within a microcontroller. An electric drive is preferably provided for adjusting the physiological and pathological breathing parameters of the lung simulator.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simulated various medical parameters for preparing trainees in the medical field for treating infants as in Schwindt in the system executing the method of Rao with the motivation of offering an anatomically accurate simulation of an infant to more aptly prepare aspiring medical students as taught by Schwindt over that of Rao.
Regarding claim 7 (Currently Amended), Rao/Schwindt discloses:
The system of claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
receive, from the remote computing device, second parameters associated with a second simulation state of the simulated infant, the second parameters comprising a second physiological parameter, a second visual parameter, and a second simulation parameter (See claims 1, 3, and 6 for citations from the prior art on these limitations. Regarding the “updated” portion, Rao, [0145], “This may allow for a personal diary of continuous data to be created.” Thereby disclosing the parameters being updated.); and
cause presentation of the content via the display to be updated based on the second updated parameters associated with the second simulation state of the simulated infant (Rao discloses annotating objects with notes. As the information of the notes is updated (see directly above), the content is updated due to the alteration of the note.).
Regarding claim 8 (Currently Amended), Rao/Schwindt discloses:
The system of claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
determine that user input has been received (Rao, [0135], “FIG. 14. shows a hand of an individual as viewed through the display of an intelligent electronic glasses or headset. The keyboard may be shown in the display and not actually projected onto the hand, thereby enabling a virtual projection onto the hand in which the keyboard as shown is super-imposed onto the image of hand and viewed through a display. The interaction with this keyboard may be using a finger or pen. The finger or pen movement may be tracked by a camera or laser housed on the mobile device/intelligent electronic glasses/headset.”);
transmit, to the remote computing device, an indication that the user input has been received (Rao, [0135], “interaction with this keyboard” And Schwindt, [0103], “The control of the overall simulation system by a trainer is performed via the graphical user interface 72. Said user interface enables the trainer to input the general conditions for the training scenario. In the course of the exercise, the desired pathological changes are controlled there, and the measures taken by the trainee can be visualized to the trainer on the user interface by visualizing the sensor data of the system. To this end, the parameters and the individual functions of the simulator 1, such as respiration and heartbeat, are initially transmitted to the simulation computer 74 before the corresponding control commands for the patient simulator 1 are generated there.”); and
receive, subsequent to transmitting the indication, the second parameters associated with the second simulation state of the simulated infant (Rao discloses annotating objects with notes. The user would utilize the keyboard for such user-performed annotations.).
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended), Rao/Schwindt discloses:
The system of claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
detect a position of an object in proximity to the physical representation of the infant (Rao, [0020], (emphasis added), “the intelligent electronic glasses may record an individual touching of an object and classify the object in a data and the object is connected to various meta-data including location, time of day, temperature, proximity to people and other factors.”); and
cause presentation of the content via the display to be updated based on the position of the object (Rao, [0020], (emphasis added), “the intelligent electronic glasses may record an individual touching of an object and classify the object in a data and the object is connected to various meta-data including location, time of day, temperature, proximity to people and other factors.”).
Regarding claim 13 (Currently Amended), Rao/Schwindt discloses:
The system of claim 12, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
Cause, in response to detecting the position of the object (See citations in claim 12.), a heart rate of the simulated infant to be presented via the display (Schwindt, [0103], “the measures taken by the trainee can be visualized to the trainer on the user interface by visualizing the sensor data of the system. To this end, the parameters and the individual functions of the simulator 1, such as respiration and heartbeat, are initially transmitted to the simulation computer 74 before the corresponding control commands for the patient simulator 1 are generated there.” And Rao, [0020], (emphasis added), “the intelligent electronic glasses may record an individual touching of an object and classify the object in a data and the object is connected to various meta-data including location, time of day, temperature, proximity to people and other factors.”).
Regarding claim 14 (Original), Rao/Schwindt discloses:
The system of claim 13, wherein the heart rate is presented using a user interface element (Schwindt, [0103], “the measures taken by the trainee can be visualized to the trainer on the user interface by visualizing the sensor data of the system. To this end, the parameters and the individual functions of the simulator 1, such as respiration and heartbeat, are initially transmitted to the simulation computer 74 before the corresponding control commands for the patient simulator 1 are generated there.”).
Regarding claim 15 (Original), Rao/Schwindt discloses:
The system of claim 13, wherein the heart rate is presented using an audio signal (Schwindt, [0052], “When generating the mixed audio signal, further parameters may be taken into consideration in addition to the position information. It will, for instance, be advantageous if the heart sound is adapted in such a manner as to indicate the heart rate.”).
Regarding claim 16 (New), Rao/Schwindt discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the physiological parameter comprises
a heart rate parameter, a respiration rate parameter, an oxygen saturation parameter, or a blood pressure parameter (Schwindt, [0052], “It will, for instance, be advantageous if the heart sound is adapted in such a manner as to indicate the heart rate”).
Regarding claim 17 (New), Rao/Schwindt discloses:
The system of claim 16, wherein the visual parameter comprises
a skin coloration parameter, a movement level parameter, a crying behavior parameter, or a breathing motion parameter (Schwindt, [0069], “FIG. 16 is a side view of the simulator with a breath-synchronous head movement.”).
Regarding claim 18 (New), Rao/Schwindt discloses:
The system of claim 17, wherein the simulation parameter comprises
a medical distress parameter, an intervention response parameter, or a vital sign presentation parameter (Schwindt, [0105], “The system comprises a patient monitor 73 for illustrating the simulated vital values of the simulated patient. The adjustable and the measured vital parameters, which are represented in real time on the graphical user interface 72”).
Regarding claim 19 (New), Rao/Schwindt discloses:
The system of claim 6, wherein the physiological parameter comprises
a heart rate parameter, a respiration rate parameter, an oxygen saturation parameter, or a blood pressure parameter (See Claim 16 for citation.).
Regarding claim 20 (New), Rao/Schwindt discloses:
The system of claim 19, wherein:
the visual parameter comprises
a skin coloration parameter, a movement level parameter, a crying behavior parameter, or a breathing motion parameter (See Claim 17 for citation.); and
the simulation parameter comprises
a medical distress parameter, an intervention response parameter, or a vital sign presentation parameter (See Claim 18 for citation.).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao and Schwindt, as applied to claims 1-8 and 12-20 above, and further in view of Sarria [US20230021433A1].
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), Rao/Schwindt discloses:
The system of claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
detect a position of an object in proximity to the physical representation of the infant (Rao, [0020], (emphasis added), “the intelligent electronic glasses may record an individual touching of an object and classify the object in a data and the object is connected to various meta-data including location, time of day, temperature, proximity to people and other factors.”).
Rao/Schwindt does not explicitly disclose causing a virtual representation of an object to be displayed as a result of detecting a position of an object with relation to the proximity of another object.
Sarria, however, discloses:
in response to detecting the position of the object in proximity to the physical representation of the infant, cause a virtual representation of a medical device to be presented via the display in connection with the content (Sarria, [0042], “As further illustrated in the AR scene shown in FIG. 2A, AIE groups 204b-204n are rendered proximate to the hand and arm of the user 100.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display virtual objects based on proximity by including the software for displaying said virtual objects with gesture recognition as in the improvement discussed in Sarria in the system executing the method of Rao/Schwindt. As in Sarria, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to display virtual objects to an augmented reality system with the predicted result of increasing immersion for the user as needed in Rao/Schwindt.
Regarding claim 10 (Currently Amended), Rao/Schwindt/Sarria discloses:
The system of claim 9,
wherein the object is a finger of a user of the head mounted display (Sarria, [0042], “As further illustrated in the AR scene shown in FIG. 2A, AIE groups 204b-204n are rendered proximate to the hand and arm of the user 100.”), and
wherein the medical device is a stethoscope (Sarria, [0006], “the AIEs that are selected for generating in the AR scene can be based on a model and the selected AIEs can be based on the interests and preferences of the user.” Although Sarria does not explicitly disclose a stethoscope, Sarria discloses generating the AIE based on a model of interest. The exact model is based on user preference (See intended use note in the section of claim 1 above.) and design choice aesthetics (See MPEP 2144.04, Section I).).
Regarding claim 11 (Original), Rao/Schwindt/Sarria discloses:
The system of claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
transmit, to the remote computing device, a position of the object in proximity to the physical representation of the infant (Sarria, [0092], “the controller device communicates via a wireless or wired connection with the client device to transmit inputs from the controller device to the client device.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9 of the Remarks, filed July 8, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 3 and 6-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 3 and 6-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY JOSEPH POLLOCK whose telephone number is (703)756-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-8:00pm 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, XUAN THAI can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/Z.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights