DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
In response to applicant’s RCE filed 4/21/2026, claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murphy et al. (US 2005/0187461) in view of Albocher et al. (US 2011/0117530) and also Audigier et al. (US 2016/0022369).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Murphy discloses wherein the system comprises a mathematical model representing a heart and various surgical scenarios and simulated outcomes. See paragraphs 0128, 0156-0157, and 0164.
Murphy discloses a surgical simulation comprising the modeling of anatomical elements, wherein the modeling comprises a geometric mesh, material
properties, and loading conditions. See paragraph 0169, wherein there is a description for one interaction with the system which comprises utiliizing this model for determining a cardiac valve treatrnent. Note the material properties (stiffness, wall tension, etc.)
and also the loading conditions (heart rate}. Paragragh 0172 discloses wherein the model is converted to a finite element mesh.
Murphy discloses wherein the system receives input from a user via an interface,
wherein the user input includes inputs representing surgical operations. See paragraphs 0164-0165 and 0167. Murphy does not explicitly disclose surgical language as the user input which is translated into a surgical action, nor wherein the outcome is translated into a second surgical language (text), and a notification is provided. However, these concepts are established with regard to medical simulations, as is disclosed by the surgical training system of Albocher in paragraph 0056. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing would have found it obvious to consider various input and feedback alternatives established in the art so as to effectively communicate with and inform the user.
Murphy discloses wherein the system processes the received input and modifies the
mathematical model by translating these inputs into modifications to the
geometric mesh, material properly, and loading conditions. See paragraphs 0185-0190.
Murphy discloses running simulations or optimization wherein the results correspond to probable outcomes of performing the real-life procedures corresponding to the user inputs. See paragraph 0190.
Murphy discloses loading conditions in paragraph 0169, and manipulation of a model based thereon in paragraph 0171. It is not explicitly disclosed wherein translating inputs requires altering loading conditions, although it is reasonable to assume that a simulation would alter the model parameters, including primarily the initially loaded conditions, as described in paragraph 0157. Nevertheless, the concept is established, as is disclosed by Audigier in paragraph 0038, and it would have been obvious to consider such a scheme with the Murphy system, in order to provide sound results.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Murphy discloses wherein blood pressure is a parameter in the system (presumably with some initial value). See paragraph 0185.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Murphy discloses tissue hardness parameters in paragraph 0169 (stiffness).
Regarding claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18, Murphy discloses wherein the user provides inputs representing surgical actions, and an indication of the surgical outcome, in paragraph 0190.
Regarding claims 6-7, 13-14, and 19-20, Murphy discloses wherein MRI imagery is utilized in creation of the mesh. See paragraphs 0099 – 0126.
Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks dated 11/4/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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 S. 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.
/TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights