Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 06/19/2025, the following occurred: Claims 3, 5-6, 8-9, 18-20, 22 have been amended; and claims 4, 11-13, 24-26 are canceled.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 14-23 and 27 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim to priority under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 37 CFR 1.78 for a continuing application and under 35 U.S.C. 371 to PCT Application No. PCT/CN2024/088354 filed on 04/17/2024, which claims priority to Foreign Chinese Application No. CN202310411909.5 filed on 04/17/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS)(s) submitted on 08/26/2025, 05/27/2026, and 09/15/2026 follow(s) the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has/have been fully considered by the Examiner.
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, 5-10, 14-23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 14 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (YES)
Claims 1, 14 and 27 fall into at least one of the statutory categories (i.e., process or machine).
Step 2A1 (YES)
In claim 1, the abstract idea is as underlined:
obtaining physical information of a patient;
sending the physical information to a first extended reality device provided at an operator end, so that the first extended reality device generates a digital twin model of the patient based on the physical information;
receiving examination information from the first extended reality device, the examination information relating to a first target examination operation performed, based on the digital twin model through the first extended reality device, by an operator; and
performing a second target examination operation on the patient based on the examination information.
In claim 14, the abstract idea is as underlined:
obtaining physical information of a patient;
generating a digital twin model of the patient based on the physical information;
causing the digital twin model to be displayed;
determining examination information based on a first target examination operation performed, based on the digital twin model, by an operator; and
sending the examination information to a physical examination device provided at a patient end, so that the physical examination device performs a second target examination operation on the patient based on the examination information.
In claim 27, the abstract idea is as underlined:
an operator end and a patient end, the operator end including a first extended reality device, the patient end including a physical examination device,
wherein the physical examination device is configured to
obtain physical information of a patient;
send the physical information to the first extended reality device;
receive examination information from the extended reality device; and
perform a second target examination operation on the patient based on
the examination information; and
the first extended reality device is configured to
receive the physical information from the physical examination device;
generate a digital twin model of the patient based on the physical
information;
cause the digital twin model to be displayed;
determine the examination information based on a first target examination operation performed, based on the digital twin model through the first extended
reality device, by an operator; and
send the examination information to the physical examination device.
Note: As some instances of the “first extended reality device” and the “physical examination device” are (1) part of the descriptions of the data, (2) part of the descriptions of additional steps or optional steps, or (3) otherwise not included in positive recitations, the underlined instances of technology are part of the abstract idea.
The identified claim elements, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to perform remote physical examination (see Spec. Para. 0003, 0047-0048 describing remote physical examination as a human activity) in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. In claim 1, the rules or instructions are the claimed steps of “obtaining… sending… receiving… and causing display” as indicated supra. In claim 14, the rules or instructions are the claimed steps of “obtaining… generating… causing… determining… sending…” as indicated supra. In claim 27, the rules or instructions are the claimed steps of “obtain… send… receive… perform…” and “receive… generate… cause… determine… send…” as indicated supra.
Other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra), i.e., a system implemented by a data processor (computer), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. The Examiner notes that certain “method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2 (NO)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a physical examination device and a first extended reality device that implement the identified abstract idea. The additional elements aforementioned are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic computer or component performing generic computer functions that facilitates the identified abstract idea) such that these amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see Specification, e.g., at para. 0053-0054 “smartwatch”). See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (NO)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a physical examination device and a first extended reality device to perform the method/the noted steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-10 and 15-23, when analyzed as a whole, are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims, when considered alone or as an ordered combination, either (1) merely further define the abstract idea, (2) do not further limit the claim to a practical application, or (3) do not provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible.
Claim 2 further describe(s) the additional element(s) of a sensor that implements the abstract idea (e.g., acquire the physical information), which represents insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that extra-solution activity cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a sensor configured to acquire the physical information is considered extra solution activity. This been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The prior art of record indicates that a sensor acquiring physical information is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field (see US 2019/0378614 to Dong at Abstract; see US 2017/0185737 to Kovacs at Abstract; see also US 2023/0029639 to Ghosh Roy at para. 0021). The Examiner notes that there is no indication that the data acquisition feature of the sensor is any different than how sensors normally acquire data. Well-understood, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 3 further describes the additional element of a mechanical arm that at most implements the identified abstract idea (e.g., to perform the physical examination of the patient). The additional element aforementioned is recited at a high-level of generality and is merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, which is insufficient to provide a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I). Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a mechanical arm to perform the method amounts no more than merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, which is insufficient to provide a practical application. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) and (f). Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Claims 5 and 15 merely further describe the abstract idea (e.g., the examination information). See analysis, supra.
Claim 6 merely further describes the abstract idea (e.g., the examination information…; performing the second target examination operation…; determining whether the first intensity is within a protection range…; in response to determining that the first intensity is outside the protection range, determining a second intensity based on the protection range; and performing the second target examination operation on the patient…) See analysis, supra. The Examiner notes that “based on” language is very broad.
Claims 7 and 17 merely further describe the abstract idea (e.g., the protection range is determined using a protection range determination model…). The Examiner notes that the BRI in light of the specification for a protection range determination model encompasses simplistic mathematical models. The specification appears to be silent on what the model may or may not entail. The model is considered to be part of the abstraction because it falls under data manipulations that humans perform and thus is part of the rules or instructions. See analysis, supra.
Claim 8 merely further describes the abstract idea (e.g., the examination information; determining a second intensity). See analysis, supra.
Claim 8 also merely further describes the additional element of the first extended reality device that implements the abstract idea (e.g., determining the second intensity based on a first intensity of the first target examination operation and a protection range). See analysis, supra.
Claims 9 and 22 merely further describe the abstract idea (e.g., the digital twin model). See analysis, supra.
Claim 10 and 23 merely further describe the abstract idea (e.g., the suspected diseased part is predicted using a diseased part prediction model based on at least one of patient information or medical records of the patient). The Examiner notes that the BRI in light of the specification for a diseased part prediction model encompasses a simplistic mathematical model. See specification, e.g., at para. 0132. The model is considered to be part of the abstraction because it falls under data manipulations that humans perform and thus is part of the rules or instructions. See analysis, supra.
Claim 16 merely further describes the abstract idea (e.g., the examination information; determining the examination information based on the first target examination operation includes: determining… and in response to determining…, determining the second intensity based on the protection range.) See analysis, supra.
Claim 18 further describes the additional element of the first extended reality device includes a virtual touch emulating device worn by at least one hand of the operator that implements the abstract idea (e.g., simulating, based on the examination information, a tactile sensation obtained by the operator when the first target examination operation or the second target examination operation is performed on the patient). The additional element aforementioned is recited at a high-level of generality and is merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, which is insufficient to provide a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I). Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a virtual touch emulating device worn by at least one hand of the operator to perform the method amounts no more than merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, which is insufficient to provide a practical application. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) and (f). Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Claim 19 merely further describes the abstract idea (e.g., the operator performs the first target examination operation on the digital twin model).
Claim 20 merely further describes the additional element of the first extended reality device includes a second wearable sensory device. Under practical application, the additional element(s) is/are merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea.
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of using a second wearable sensory device is/are considered generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP § 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. Accordingly, even in combination, this/these additional element(s) does/do not provide significantly more. As such, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim 21 merely further describes the additional element of the second wearable sensory device that implements the abstract idea (e.g., to perform the first target operation). The additional element aforementioned is recited at a high-level of generality and is merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, which is insufficient to provide a practical application. Note: Parent claim 14 does not limit the described first target operation. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I). Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a second wearable sensory device to perform the method amounts no more than merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, which is insufficient to provide a practical application. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) and (f). Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 14-17, 19 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Trobinger et al. (2021)(“A Dual Doctor-Patient Twin Paradigm for Transparent Remote Examination, Diagnosis, and Rehabilitation”; “Trobinger” herein).
Re. Claim 1, Trobinger teaches a method for remote physical examination, implemented on a physical examination device provided at a patient end (Abstract teaches an approach to a remote doctor visit, which enables transparent remote examination. Pg. 2933, Right Column, Section 1 and Fig. 1 teach this paradigm involves a dual doctor-patient twin… one representing the doctor (a service humanoid robot referred to as ‘GARMI’… on the patient side)…), the method comprising:
obtaining physical information of a patient (Pg. 2935, Left Column, Section III, Step 2 teaches “using data from multimodal sensors, integrated in the doctor twin (i.e., GARMI system), the patient’s movements are tracked in 3D and his/her behavior (e.g., facial expression) is visually captured…”; pg. 2937, Left Column, Section IV-B and Fig. 3 teach “Control architecture of the haptic bidirectional interaction between the doctor and the patient”; and pg. 2937, Right Column, Section IV-C teaches “The RGBD camera on GARMI captures the patient’s 3D human skeleton used for motion analysis…”);
sending the physical information to a first extended reality device provided at an operator end (see pg. 2936, Right Column and pg. 2937, Left Column, Section IV-B and Fig. 3 (“In order for MUCKI to represent the state of the patient’s arm, given only the pose of MUCKI’s end-effector and forces measured at GARMI’s two end-effectors, a symmetry needs to be established between the systems. Therefore, before the bidirectional teleoperation control, MUCKI’s pose is initialized consistently to that of the patient’s arm.”), so that the first extended reality device generates a digital twin model of the patient based on the physical information (The Examiner notes that “so that… generates…” is an intended result of “sending…” Regardless, see pg. 2935, Left Column, Section III, Step 2 (“The information is sent to a musculoskeletal model (i.e., a digital twin) of the patient for both identifying segment lengths and inertia of the patient…”); pg. 2936, Left Column, Section IV-A (“we deploy the mathematical model of human shoulder-arm musculoskeletal dynamics… as the patient digital twin.”);
receiving examination information from the first extended reality device, the examination information relating to a first target examination operation performed, based on the digital twin model through the first extended reality device, by an operator (pg. 2936, Right Column and pg. 2937, Left Column, Section IV-B and Fig. 3 (“For haptic bidirectional interaction, GARMI’s control is [] …, allowing a transparent kinematic transmission from the doctor’s intervention via MUCKI-GARMI to the patient”; and pg. 2935, Right Column, Section III, Step 4 (“The doctor performs a series of tests on the patient via the twins… Throughout the examination, the patient feels the forces and movements imposed by the doctor via the GARMI system…”); and
performing a second target examination operation on the patient based on the examination information (see pg. 2395, Right Column, Section III, Step 4 (“Throughout the examination, the patient feels the forces and movements imposed by the doctor via the GARMI system, while the doctor feels the mechanical impedance of the patient via the MUCKI system. Thus, GARMI and MUCKI serve as both sensor and actuator, allowing both patient and doctor to experience the physical interaction as if the doctor were in the room with the patient.”))
Re. Claim 2, Trobinger teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the physical examination device includes a sensor configured to acquire the physical information (See claim 1 prior art rejection. See also pg. 2933, Right Column and pg. 2934, Left Column, Section I (“Each robotic twin serves both as a multi-modal sensor…”))
Re. Claim 3, Trobinger teaches the method of claim 1, wherein
the physical examination device includes a first wearable sensory device that is worn by the patient and configured to perform the physical examination on the patient (pg. 2934, Left and Right Column, Section II-B teaches inertial sensors that allow for motion capture; and reference 21 teaches an inertial sensor positioned close to the sacrum for estimation of pelvis kinematics; reference 23 teaches wearable sensors for joint angle estimation; ); and/or
the physical examination device includes a mechanical arm configured to perform the physical examination on the patient (see claim 1 prior art rejection. See pg. 2936, Right Column and pg. 2937, Left Column, Section IV-B and Figs. 1-3 (“GARMI, with its 14-dof dual-arm subsystem… used as avatars and represent the doctor… twin… GARMI grasps the patient’s arm at the corresponding positions as the doctor grasps MUCKI (e.g., at the proximal end of the forearm as well as at the wrist).”))
Re. Claim 5, Trobinger teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the examination information includes at least one examination position of the first target examination operation and at least one of a type, a direction, or a first intensity of the first target examination operation (see pg. 2937, Left Column, Section IV-B (“MUCKI’s pose is initialized consistently to that of the patient’s arm”) (at least one examination position); pg. 2935, Right Column, Section III, Step 4 (“The digital twin, in combination with the pain detection process mentioned in Step 3, also ensures that the doctor avatar does not move the patient outside of his/her safe range of motion”) (a first intensity). See also pg. 2937, Left Column, Section IV-B and Fig. 3 (“GARMI grasps the patient’s arm at the corresponding positions as the doctor grasps MUCKI (e.g., at the proximal end of the forearm as well as at the wrist… GARMI… its effective equations of motion are… where … represents the torques caused by external interactions at both of GARMI’s end-effectors…”) (a type or a direction of the operation).)
Re. Claim 6, Trobinger teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the examination information includes at least one examination position of the first target examination operation and a first intensity of the first target examination operation (see pg. 2937, Left Column, Section IV-B (“MUCKI’s pose is initialized consistently to that of the patient’s arm”) (at least one examination position); pg. 2935, Right Column, Section III, Step 4 (“The digital twin, in combination with the pain detection process mentioned in Step 3, also ensures that the doctor avatar does not move the patient outside of his/her safe range of motion”) (a first intensity). See also pg. 2937, Left Column, Section IV-B and Fig. 3 (“GARMI grasps the patient’s arm at the corresponding positions as the doctor grasps MUCKI (e.g., at the proximal end of the forearm as well as at the wrist… GARMI… its effective equations of motion are… where … represents the torques caused by external interactions at both of GARMI’s end-effectors…”) (a type or a direction of the operation).); and
performing the second target examination operation on the patient based on the examination information includes:
determining whether the first intensity is within a protection range (see pg. 2935, Right Column, Step 3 (“Anomalies, including observed pain or abnormalities in the patient’s kinematics or muscle activity, are identified by the system.”); pg. 2935, Right Column, Section III, Step 4 (“The digital twin, in combination with the pain detection process mentioned in Step 3, also ensures that the doctor avatar does not move the patient outside of his/her safe range of motion”).);
in response to determining that the first intensity is outside the protection range, determining a second intensity based on the protection range (see pg. 2937, Left Column, Section IV-B (“For haptic bidirectional interaction, GARMI’s control is… where the positive definite matrices… are controller parameters and… is the control error regarding the end-effectors’ poses… The extended Jacobian matrix… considers the patient’s shoulder-arm kinematics (cf. (1)) and thus scales MUCKI’s kinematics close to the patient’s, allowing a transparent kinematic transmission from the doctor’s intervention via MUCKI-GARMI to the patient”) (emphasis added).); and
performing the second target examination operation on the patient based on the second intensity (see pg. 2395, Right Column, Section III, Step 4 (“Throughout the examination, the patient feels the forces and movements imposed by the doctor via the GARMI system, while the doctor feels the mechanical impedance of the patient via the MUCKI system. Thus, GARMI and MUCKI serve as both sensor and actuator, allowing both patient and doctor to experience the physical interaction as if the doctor were in the room with the patient.”))
Re. Claim 7, Trobinger teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the protection range is determined using a protection range determination model based on at least one of patient information or medical records of the patient (see claim 6 prior art rejection. See pg. 2937, Left Column, Section IV-B (“For haptic bidirectional interaction, GARMI’s control is… where the positive definite matrices… are controller parameters and… is the control error regarding the end-effectors’ poses… The extended Jacobian matrix… considers the patient’s shoulder-arm kinematics (cf. (1)) and thus scales MUCKI’s kinematics close to the patient’s, allowing a transparent kinematic transmission from the doctor’s intervention via MUCKI-GARMI to the patient”) (emphasis added) has such an equation model that is used to scale MUCKI’s kinematics based on the patient’s kinematics.)
Re. Claim 8, Trobinger teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the examination information includes at least one examination position of the first target examination operation (see pg. 2937, Left Column, Section IV-B (“MUCKI’s pose is initialized consistently to that of the patient’s arm”)) and at least one of a type of the first target examination operation, a direction of the first target examination operation, or a second intensity corresponding to the at least one examination position (see pg. 2937, Left Column, Section IV-B (“For haptic bidirectional interaction, GARMI’s control is… where the positive definite matrices… are controller parameters and… is the control error regarding the end-effectors’ poses… The extended Jacobian matrix… considers the patient’s shoulder-arm kinematics (cf. (1)) and thus scales MUCKI’s kinematics close to the patient’s, allowing a transparent kinematic transmission from the doctor’s intervention via MUCKI-GARMI to the patient”) (emphasis added) (a second intensity); pg. 2937, Left Column, Section IV-B and Fig. 3 (“GARMI grasps the patient’s arm at the corresponding positions as the doctor grasps MUCKI… GARMI… effective equations of motion are … where … represents the torques caused by external interactions at both of GARMI’s end-effectors…”) (type or direction)); and
the second intensity is determined, by the first extended reality device, based on a first intensity of the first target examination operation and a protection range (pg. 2935, Right Column, Section III, Step 4 teaches the digital twin, in combination with the pain detection process mentioned in Step 3, also ensures that the doctor avatar does not move the patient outside of his/her safe range of motion (a protection range). Pg. 2937, Left Column, Section IV-B teaches, for haptic bidirectional interaction, GARMI’s control is … The extended Jacobian matrix… considers the patient’s shoulder-arm kinematics (cf. (1)) and thus scales MUCKI’s kinematics close to the patient’s (the second intensity is determined…), allowing a transparent kinematic transmission from the doctor’s intervention via MUCKI-GARMI to the patient.)
Re. Claim 14, Trobinger teaches a method for remote physical examination, implemented on a first extended reality device provided at an operator end (Abstract teaches an approach to a remote doctor visit, which enables transparent remote examination. Pg. 2933, Right Column, Section 1 and Fig. 1 teach this paradigm involves a dual doctor-patient twin… one representing the patient (referred to as “MUCKI”, on the doctor side).), the method comprising:
obtaining physical information of a patient (see counterpart claim 1 prior art rejection. See pg. 2936, Right Column and pg. 2937, Left Column, Section IV-B and Fig. 3 (“In order for MUCKI to represent the state of the patient’s arm, given only the pose of MUCKI’s end-effector and forces measured at GARMI’s two end-effectors, a symmetry needs to be established between the systems. Therefore, before the bidirectional teleoperation control, MUCKI’s pose is initialized consistently to that of the patient’s arm.”);
generating a digital twin model of the patient based on the physical information (see pg. 2935, Left Column, Section III, Step 2 (“The information is sent to a musculoskeletal model (i.e., a digital twin) of the patient for both identifying segment lengths and inertia of the patient…”); pg. 2936, Left Column, Section IV-A (“we deploy the mathematical model of human shoulder-arm musculoskeletal dynamics… as the patient digital twin.”);
causing the digital twin model to be displayed (Fig. 2 shows that the remote physical examination is enhanced by the patient digital twin communicated to the doctor through MUCKI audio-video on a display device.);
determining examination information based on a first target examination operation performed, based on the digital twin model, by an operator (see pg. 2937, Left Column, Section IV-B and Fig. 3 (“For haptic bidirectional interaction, GARMI’s control is… and thus scales MUCKI’s kinematics close to the patient’s, allowing a transparent kinematic transmission from the doctor’s intervention via MUCKI-GARMI to the patient.”)); and
sending the examination information to a physical examination device provided at a patient end (see previous citation; pg. 2935, Right Column, Section III, Step 4 and Fig. 3 (“The doctor performs a series of tests on the patient via the twins… Throughout the examination, the patient feels the forces and movements imposed by the doctor via the GARMI system…” The transmission from the doctor’s intervention corresponds to sending the examination information.), so that the physical examination device performs a second target examination operation on the patient based on the examination information (The Examiner notes that “so that… performs…” is an intended result of “sending…” Regardless, see pg. 2395, Right Column, Section III, Step 4 (“Throughout the examination, the patient feels the forces and movements imposed by the doctor via the GARMI system, while the doctor feels the mechanical impedance of the patient via the MUCKI system. Thus, GARMI and MUCKI serve as both sensor and actuator, allowing both patient and doctor to experience the physical interaction as if the doctor were in the room with the patient.”)
Re. Claim 15, the subject matter of claim 15 is essentially defined in terms of a method, which is technically corresponding to method claim 5. Since claim 15 is analogous to claim 5, it is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claim 5.
Re. Claim 16, Trobinger teaches the method of claim 14, wherein
the examination information includes at least one examination position of the first target examination operation (see pg. 2937, Left Column, Section IV-B (“MUCKI’s pose is initialized consistently to that of the patient’s arm”)) and at least one of a type of the first target examination operation, a direction of the first target examination operation, or a second intensity corresponding to the at least one examination position (see pg. 2937, Left Column, Section IV-B (“For haptic bidirectional interaction, GARMI’s control is… where the positive definite matrices… are controller parameters and… is the control error regarding the end-effectors’ poses… The extended Jacobian matrix… considers the patient’s shoulder-arm kinematics (cf. (1)) and thus scales MUCKI’s kinematics close to the patient’s, allowing a transparent kinematic transmission from the doctor’s intervention via MUCKI-GARMI to the patient”) (emphasis added) (a second intensity); pg. 2937, Left Column, Section IV-B and Fig. 3 (“GARMI grasps the patient’s arm at the corresponding positions as the doctor grasps MUCKI… GARMI… effective equations of motion are … where … represents the torques caused by external interactions at both of GARMI’s end-effectors…”) (type or direction).); and
determining the examination information based on the first target examination operation includes:
determining whether a first intensity of the first target examination operation is within a protection range (see pg. 2935, Right Column, Step 3 (“Anomalies, including observed pain or abnormalities in the patient’s kinematics or muscle activity, are identified by the system.”); pg. 2935, Right Column, Section III, Step 4 (“The digital twin, in combination with the pain detection process mentioned in Step 3, also ensures that the doctor avatar does not move the patient outside of his/her safe range of motion”).); and
in response to determining that the first intensity is outside the protection range, determining the second intensity based on the protection range (see pg. 2937, Left Column, Section IV-B (“For haptic bidirectional interaction, GARMI’s control is… where the positive definite matrices… are controller parameters and… is the control error regarding the end-effectors’ poses… The extended Jacobian matrix… considers the patient’s shoulder-arm kinematics (cf. (1)) and thus scales MUCKI’s kinematics close to the patient’s, allowing a transparent kinematic transmission from the doctor’s intervention via MUCKI-GARMI to the patient”) (emphasis added).)
Re. Claim 17, the subject matter of claim 17 is essentially defined in terms of a method, which is technically corresponding to method claim 7. Since claim 17 is analogous to claim 7, it is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claim 7.
Re. Claim 19, Trobinger teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the operator performs the first target examination operation on the digital twin model (pg. 2934, Right Column, Section II-D teaches remote examination… achieved using a novel doctor-patient twin paradigm and setup as follows… during patient-doctor interaction via an integrated patient digital twin.”))
Re. Claim 27, the subject matter of claim 27 is essentially defined in terms of a system, which is technically corresponding to method claims 1 and 14. Since claim 27 is analogous to claims 1 and 14, it is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claims 1 and 14.
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.
Claims 9-10, 18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trobinger in view of Ramachandran et al. (US 2022/0148723; “Ramachandran” herein).
Re. Claim 9, Trobinger teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the digital twin model includes visualization […] (Figs. 1-2 show a patient digital twin on a display. See also pg. 2934, Right Column, Section II (“3D cameras have already shown promise for a multitude of medical applications, including diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease from generated gait features [26], visually tracking elbow motions with the goal of recognizing patients with cerebellar ataxia [27]”).)
Trobinger may not teach visualization of at least one diseased part of the patient, the at least one diseased part including at least one of a suspected diseased part or a definite diseased part.
Ramachandran teaches
visualization of at least one diseased part of the patient, the at least one diseased part including at least one of a suspected diseased part or a definite diseased part (Fig. 4 and [0057] teach the first 3D model 120 may be rendered on the first head-mounted display 104… of at least the first anatomical portion 118 of the body of the human subject 116. Fig. 4 and [0062] a first region 122 may be selected… in the rendered first 3D model 120 of the first anatomical portion 118, as shown in a view 406A… The first region 122 may correspond to the defect portion in the first anatomical portion 118 of the body, e.g., a tumorous tissue or organ.)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the dual doctor-patient twin system and method of Trobinger to render a 3D anatomical model for manipulation by a user of a head-mounted display and to use this information as part of a system and method for medical examination of a human body using haptics as taught by Ramachandran, with the motivation of improving remote patient diagnostics and decision support (see Ramachandran at para. 0002-0004, 0020).
Re. Claim 10, Ramachandran teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the suspected diseased part is predicted using a diseased part prediction model based on at least one of patient information or medical records of the patient ([0020] teaches implementing a machine learning model to generate recommendations for the medical practitioner. Such recommendations may be based on the received set of bio-signals, medical condition information associated with the human subject, and anthropometric features related to the body of the human subject. For example, such recommendations may include, but are not limited to, a course of treatment for the defect portion, a current condition of the defect portion, a prognosis for the defect portion, and a diagnosis related to the defect portion of the human subject. See also [0085], “prediction”.)
Re. Claim 18, Trobinger teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the first extended reality device includes […] (see claim 14 prior art rejection); and
the method further comprises:
[…] when the first target examination operation or the second target examination operation is performed on the patient (see claim 14 prior art rejection).
Trobinger does not teach a virtual touch emulating device worn by at least one hand of the operator; or simulating, based on the examination information, a tactile sensation obtained by the operator.
a virtual touch emulating device worn by at least one hand of the operator; and simulating, based on the examination information, a tactile sensation obtained by the operator (Fig. 4 and [0068] teach In another embodiment, the wearable haptic device 106 may emulate through the haptic feedback, a warmth or coldness associated the defect portion on a portion of user's skin in contact with the wearable haptic device 106. For example, if the user 114 wears a haptic glove on the right hand and touches a swelling region on a 3D model of a human arm, then the haptic feedback may stimulate sensations which may typically be experienced when the swelling is physically touched in course of a physical examination. Such sensations may include tactile and/or kinesthetic sensation, as well as warmth associated with the swelling.)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the dual doctor-patient twin system and method of Trobinger to render a 3D anatomical model for human-machine interactions of a user of a head-mounted display and a wearable haptic device (e.g., a haptic glove) and to use this information as part of a system and method for medical examination of a human body as taught by Ramachandran, with the motivation of improving remote patient diagnostics and decision support (see Ramachandran at para. 0002-0004, 0020).
Re. Claim 20, Trobinger teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the first extended reality device includes […] (see claim 14 prior art rejection).
Trobinger may not teach a second wearable sensory device.
Ramachandran teaches a second wearable sensory device ([0068] teaches a wearable haptic device 106).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the dual doctor-patient twin system and method of Trobinger to render a 3D anatomical model for human-machine interactions of a user of a head-mounted display and a wearable haptic device (e.g., a haptic glove) and to use this information as part of a system and method for medical examination of a human body as taught by Ramachandran (see para. 0068), with the motivation of improving remote patient diagnostics and decision support (see Ramachandran at para. 0002-0004, 0020).
Re. Claim 21, Trobinger teaches the method of claim 20, wherein the operator performs the first target examination operation (see claim 14 prior art rejection) on the second wearable sensory device (106) (see Ramachandran [0068]).
Re. Claim 22, the subject matter of claim 22 is essentially defined in terms of a method, which is technically corresponding to method claim 9. Since claim 22 is analogous to claim 9, it is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claim 9.
Re. Claim 23, the subject matter of claim 23 is essentially defined in terms of a method, which is technically corresponding to method claim 10. Since claim 23 is analogous to claim 10, it is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mason (US 2022/0183557) for teaching remote examination through augmented reality.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica M Webb whose telephone number is (469)295-9173. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-1:00pm CST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571) 272-6773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from 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.
/J.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/CHRISTOPHER L GILLIGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
