DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Applicant’s submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 07/21/2026. Presently, claims 1, 4-12, 14, 15, 17, and 19-21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 04/21/2026. Applicant’s representative asserts that the amended claims limitations are not met. However, in light of the amendments to the claims, new rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 103 have been presented, as discussed in detail below.
In regards to rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103, applicant asserts the following: “Moffat does not disclose a neck joint comprising a plurality of facet joints. Paragraph [0064], for example, describes the neck joint as including a ball member with a shaft extending from opposed sides thereof, with each shaft end engaging a hole in the head, and with a socket housing within which the ball member rotates. The neck joint of Moffat is a ball-and-socket joint, not a plurality of facet joints.” (Page 10 of Remarks)
Regarding point (1), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments above, Moffat discloses that a neck joint has a ball and socket joint (abstract of Moffat) and there can be one or more of these articulated ball and socket joints in the neck (¶52). If facet joints have a different definition, applicant must clearly disclose what the definition is. Currently the specification of the present invention only mentions a facet joint in ¶57 as an example but has no real definition for it. (See 103 rejection below).
In regards to rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103, applicant asserts the following: “The predetermined range of motion recited in claim 1 corresponds to the clinical practice of developmental positioning of premature neonates, which is structurally and functionally distinct from the natural movement of a healthy baby disclosed in Moffat. Sweeney does not disclose articulated joints with any predetermined range of motion. The premature baby growth chart provides only dimensional data.” (Page 11 of Remarks).
Regarding point (2), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments above, there is no description of how this limitation is functionality distinct through the structure in the prior art. There is no mention in the claims or specification of the present invention on how Moffat’s limitations would stop Moffat from simulating a hypotonic condition. The structure of Moffat discloses the use of ball and socket joints to closely mimic natural movement of a baby (abstract of Moffat) and the specification of the present invention shows examples of the structure of a premature infant mannequin that mention first, second, third, and fourth joints comprise ball and socket joints (¶54 of the present invention). Applicant must disclose how the structure of Moffat stops it from simulating a hypotonic condition and fully disclose the “structure-specific requirement” quoted above, since all the structural limitation are being met by Moffat. (See 103 Rejection below)
In regards to rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103, applicant asserts the following: “Moffat does not disclose joints configured for developmental positioning of a hypotonic premature infant. The articulated joints of Moffat are designed to closely mimic natural movement of a real baby, which corresponds to spontaneous movement by a healthy infant rather than caregiver-applied positioning of a hypotonic infant.” (Page 11 of Remarks).
Regarding point (3), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments above, there is no description of how this limitation is functionality distinct through the structure in the prior art. There is no mention in the claims or specification of the present invention on how Moffat’s limitations would stop Moffat from simulating a hypotonic condition. Applicant must disclose how the structure of Moffat stops it from simulating a developmental positioning in supine, prone, and sidelying in the premature context, since all the structural limitation are being met by Moffat and these developmental positions are being disclosed in Figures 2, and 18-19. (See 103 Rejection below)
In regards to rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103, applicant asserts the following: “The configuration recited in claim 1 of joints for developmental positioning of a premature neonatal infant is a fundamentally different design philosophy from the healthy baby movement design of Moffat. A reference that teaches away from a claimed configuration does not render that configuration obvious. Moffat directs one of ordinary skill in the art toward joints simulating healthy baby movement, not toward joints configured for clinical developmental positioning of hypotonic premature neonates.” (Page 12 of Remarks).
Regarding point (4), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments above, there is no description of how this limitation is functionality distinct through the structure in the prior art. Applicant is simply mentioning the intended use of the application, but there is no mention in the claims or specification of the present invention on how Moffat’s limitations would stop Moffat from simulating a hypotonic condition. The structure of Moffat discloses the use of ball and socket joints to closely mimic natural movement of a baby (abstract of Moffat) and the specification of the present invention shows examples of the structure of a premature infant mannequin that mention first, second, third, and fourth joints comprise ball and socket joints (¶54 of the present invention). Applicant must disclose how the structure of Moffat stops it from simulating a hypotonic condition and fully disclose the “structure-specific requirement” quoted above, since all the structural limitation are being met by Moffat. (See 103 Rejection below)
In regards to rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103, applicant asserts the following: “The premature baby growth chart provides a growth chart with dimensional data for premature infants and discloses no mannequin structure. The premature baby growth chart cannot supply the joint configuration recited in claim 1 and is relied upon in the Office Action solely for dimensional ranges. The reliance on routine optimization under MPEP 2144.05(II) for the dimensional ranges does not address the joint configuration recited in claim 1. Routine optimization applies when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the references; the general conditions of a mannequin with a facet joint neck, compound shoulder joints, compound hip joints, and joints configured for developmental positioning are not disclosed in any of the cited references.” (Page 12 of Remarks).
Regarding point (5), examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments above, these limitations are disclosed by Moffet because hip joints and shoulder joints are double ball and socket joints (abstract and ¶52 or Moffat) and the articulated neck joint is not limited to one (¶41-¶42 and ¶45-46). (See 103 Rejection below)
In regards to rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103, applicant asserts the following: “In addition, claim 12 is directed to a method of training medical professionals for neonatal intensive care. As recited, claim 12 includes the affirmative step of evaluating developmental positioning using the IPAT to assess shoulder placement, hand placement, hip placement, knee placement, ankle placement, foot placement, head placement, and neck positioning. A method claim is defined by the steps it recites and is practiced only by performing those steps. The IPAT evaluation step recited in claim 12 is an affirmative act that the practitioner must carry out: the practitioner applies a specific clinical assessment instrument, the IPAT, to assess eight enumerated placement parameters. This step is a positive limitation and must be addressed on its own terms in the obviousness analysis.” (Page 13 of Remarks).
Regarding point (6), examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments above, the purpose of the IPAT is to standardize and evaluate developmentally supportive positioning practices for infants in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). Applicant is simply stating the purpose of the IPAT. (See 103 Rejection below)
Regarding claims 5 and 12, since they recite similar features to claim 1, they will be rejected with the newly found prior art as stated above. Therefore, the rejection is maintained as present below.
Applicant’s representative argues that since the references do not disclose the suggested features of claim 1, 5, and 12 and so, dependent claims are patentable. However, in light of the remarks and standing rejection below, the examiner asserts the prior art of record teaches all the elements as claimed and these elements satisfy all structural, functional, operational, and spatial limitations currently in the claims. Therefore, the standing rejections are proper and maintained.
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, 4, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20, and 21 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.
Claims 1 and 12 recite the following limitation: “two hip joints” in line 22. This limitation is not adequately described in the specification as originally filed and forms the basis of the rejection. As such, the limitations are reasonably rejected under a theory of new matter. Therefore, claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 9 recites the following limitation: “configured to permit cervical articulation of the head relative to the torso” in line 2. This limitation is not adequately described in the specification as originally filed and forms the basis of the rejection. As such, the limitations are reasonably rejected under a theory of new matter. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 4, 9, 14, 15, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1, 5-12, 14, 17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOFFAT et al. (US 20190285112 A1 see-IDS; hereinafter Moffat) in view of Kevin M. Sweeney (US 4331426 A; hereinafter Sweeney) and Prem2Pram (Premature Baby Growth Chart; hereinafter Prem).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Moffat discloses a neonatal mannequin (mannequin in Fig 1) comprising: a neonatal body comprising a torso, a head, joints, and four limbs, arranged and connected to model an infant (mannequin with connected parts Fig 1), wherein each of the head and the four limbs are movably attached to the torso by a respective joint of the joints, the joints being configured to move in directions and at angles natural to a neonatal infant (¶40-41 and Fig 1), the joints allowing simulation of realistic neonatal movement of the head and the four limbs relative the torso (¶8), the joints provide a predetermined range of motion in all extremities (there is a predetermined range of motion because it needs to have a specific range and predetermined range in order to closely mimic a range of poses or postures in ¶21 and the mannequin is designed in the desired amount of joint travel, therefore the motion can be predetermined; ¶34) based on a hypotonic condition with reduced resistance to extension to replicate lack of muscle tone in hypotonic premature neonatal infants (this is intended use, the structure of Moffat discloses the limitations claimed) and are configured to permit developmental positioning in supine, prone, and sidelying positions wherein as practiced in neonatal intensive care (shows multiple positions like supine, prone, or sidelying; See Fig 18-19), wherein the joints and body parts are configured to provide measurable positioning parameters evaluable by Infant Positioning Assessment Tool (IPAT), the positioning parameters including shoulder placement, hand placement, hip placement, knee placement, ankle placement, foot placement, head placement, and neck positioning (this is intended use because Moffat still discloses all the structural limitations, this does not change the end result of the product, furthermore, this is the purpose of the IPAT, the IPAT’s purpose is to standardize and evaluate developmentally supportive positioning practices for infants in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit), wherein the premature neonatal mannequin is configured to train neonatal intensive care unit nurses (used train healthcare workers in ¶74 and also intended use because Moffat discloses all the structural limitations) in developmental positioning of premature neonatal infants (shows multiple positions like supine or prone; See Fig 18-19), wherein the joints comprise a neck joint connecting the head to the torso (neck connected to torso shown in Fig 1 and 6), two shoulder joints each connecting a respective arm to the torso (shoulder connected to arms and torso; Fig 1), and two hip joints each connecting a respective leg to the torso (compound joints configured to simulate a neonatal infant hip; Fig 1, ¶42 and ¶61), the neck joint comprising a plurality of facet joints (neck joint has an articulated ball and socket joint as described in the abstract, and it can have one or more articulated ball and socket joints as described in ¶52 and to achieve realistic movement, the neck joint must have facet joints or facet joint-like structure in ¶44 and ¶52), each of the shoulder joints comprising a compound joint (shoulder joints have double ball and socket joints; ¶41 and ¶52), and each of the hip joints comprising a compound joint (hip joint has double ball and socket joints; ¶41 and ¶52), and wherein the joints are configured to prevent motion outside the predetermined range of motion (design it in the desired amount of joint travel, therefore the motion can be predetermined; ¶34), and are configured to be manipulated and positioned in a developmentally appropriate manner for a premature neonatal infant such that the mannequin is configured for developmental positioning in supine, prone, and sidelying positions (shows multiple positions like supine, prone, or sidelying; See Fig 18-19).
Moffet discloses the full structure of claim 1 for a neonatal mannequin but does not explicitly disclose this neonatal mannequin to be a premature neonatal mannequin, wherein the torso, the head, and the four limbs are proportioned to simulate an average neonatal infant body having a weight of up to 1 pound 11 ounces and a length of up to 13 inches.
However, Sweeney focuses on a premature mannequin for CPR, which relates to Moffet because they both are focus on creating a realistic model for a newborn mannequin. Sweeney teaches in their background of invention this neonatal mannequin to be a premature neonatal mannequin (col 1 lines 41-43), wherein the torso, the head, and the four limbs are proportioned to simulate an average neonatal infant body having a weight of up to 1 pound 11 ounces and a length of up to 13 inches (here the premature baby has the size, shape and weight of premature baby; col 1 lines 41-43). Although Sweeney does not explicitly mention a range of length and weight for a premature mannequin, Prem shows a chart with multiple dimensions for premature newborn babies with multiple ranges of a weight of up to 1 pound 11 ounces and a length of up to 13 inches. Configuring Moffat to change the size and dimensions of their mannequin model in order to have the torso, the head, and the four limbs proportioned to simulate an average neonatal infant body having a weight of up to 1 pound 11 ounces and a length of up to 13 inches is a Routine Optimization because Moffat only differs from the present invention over these claimed ranges for the weight and length of the mannequin.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moffat to implement the teachings of Sweeney and Prem because in order to simulate a realistic mannequin of a premature newborn baby, you would need the right dimensions and weight. The dimension and weight of the mannequin up to 1 pound 11 ounces and a length of up to 13 inches is a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, scaling the dimensions and weight of a mannequin is a Routine Optimization (MPEP 2144.05 II. Routine Optimization).
Regarding claim 5, Moffat discloses a neonatal mannequin (Fig. 1) comprising: a torso, the torso being anatomically correct for a neonatal infant (torso shown in Fig. 1), the torso having a first side, a second side, an upper portion and a lower portion (all sides shown in figure 1); a first arm attached to the torso at the first side in the upper portion (arm shown in Fig 1), the first arm attached to the torso by a first joint configured to simulate infant movement of the first arm (mimics movement of an infant; ¶43-44); a second arm attached the torso at the second side in the upper portion (second arm attached in Fig 1), the second arm attached to the torso by a second joint configured to simulate premature infant movement of the second arm (mimics movement of an infant; ¶43-44); a first leg attached to the torso at the first side in the lower portion (first leg attached in Fig 1), the first leg attached to the torso by a third joint configured to simulate premature infant movement of the first leg (mimics movement of an infant; ¶43-44); a second leg attached to the torso at the second side in the lower portion (second leg attached in Fig 1), the second leg attached to the torso by a fourth joint configured to simulate premature infant movement of the second leg (mimics movement of an infant; ¶43-44); and a head connected to the torso by a neck at an end of the upper portion (head connected in Fig 1), the neck comprising a neck joint (¶42), wherein the neck joint is configured to simulate infant movement of the head (mimics movement of an infant; ¶43-44), wherein each of the first arm, the second arm, the first leg, the second leg, and the head are moveable relative the torso in a realistic manner for the neonatal infant (moving in a realistic manner; ¶44) due to the first, second, third, fourth, and neck joints being configured to move in directions and at angles natural to the neonatal infant (mimicking range of poses or postures requires movement in directions and angles natural to an infant); wherein the joints provide a predetermined range of motion in all extremities (there is a predetermined range of motion because it needs to have a specific range and predetermined range in order to closely mimic a range of poses or postures; ¶21) based on a hypotonic condition with reduced resistance to extension to replicate lack of muscle tone in hypotonic premature neonatal infants (this is intended use, the structure of Moffat discloses the limitations claimed) and are configured to permit developmental positioning in supine, prone, and sidelying positions as practiced in neonatal intensive care (shows multiple positions like supine, prone, or sidelying; See Fig 18-19), wherein the first, second, third, fourth, and neck joints and body parts are configured to provide measurable positioning parameters evaluable by Infant Positioning Assessment Tool (IPAT), the positioning parameters including shoulder placement, hand placement, hip placement, knee placement, ankle placement, foot placement, head placement, and neck positioning (this is intended use because Moffat still discloses all the structural limitations, this does not change the end result of the product), and wherein the premature neonatal mannequin is configured to train neonatal intensive care unit nurses (can be used to train healthcare workers; ¶74) in developmental positioning of premature neonatal infants (shows multiple positions like supine or prone; See Fig 18-19), wherein the neck joint comprises a plurality of facet joints (neck joint has an articulated ball and socket joint as described in the abstract, and it can have one or more articulated ball and socket joints as described in ¶52 and to achieve realistic movement, the neck joint must have facet joints or facet joint-like structure in ¶44 and ¶52), each of the first joint and the second joint comprises a compound joint (shoulder joints have double ball and socket joints; ¶41 and ¶52), and each of the third joint and the fourth joint comprises a compound joint (hip joint has double ball and socket joints; ¶41 and ¶52), and wherein the first, second, third, fourth, and neck joints are configured to prevent motion outside the predetermined range of motion (design it in the desired amount of joint travel, therefore the motion can be predetermined; ¶34), and are configured to be manipulated and positioned in a developmentally appropriate way for a premature neonatal infant such that the mannequin is configured for developmental positioning in supine, prone, and sidelying positions (shows multiple positions like supine, prone, or sidelying; See Fig 18-19). Moffat does not explicitly disclose each of the first arm, the second arm, the first leg, the second leg, and the head are proportioned relative the torso to simulate a premature neonatal infant body having a weight of up to 1 pound 11 ounces and a length of up to 13 inches.
However, Sweeney focuses on a premature mannequin for CPR, which relates to Moffet because they both are focused on creating a realistic model for a newborn mannequin. Sweeney teaches in their background of invention this neonatal mannequin to be a premature neonatal mannequin (col 1 lines 41-43), each of the first arm, the second arm, the first leg, the second leg, and the head are proportioned relative the torso to simulate a premature neonatal infant body (here the premature baby has the size, shape and weight of premature baby; col 1 lines 41-43). Although Sweeney does not explicitly mention a range of length and weight for a premature mannequin, Prem shows a chart with multiple dimensions for premature newborn babies with multiple ranges of a weight of up to 1 pound 11 ounces and a length of up to 13 inches. Configuring Moffat to change the size and dimensions of their mannequin model in order to have the torso, the head, and the four limbs proportioned to simulate an average neonatal infant body having a weight of up to 1 pound 11 ounces and a length of up to 13 inches is a Routine Optimization because Moffat only differs from the present invention over these claimed ranges for the weight and length of the mannequin.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moffat to implement the teachings of Sweeney and Prem because in order to simulate a realistic mannequin of a premature newborn baby, you would need the right dimensions and weight. The dimension and weight of the mannequin up to 1 pound 11 ounces and a length of up to 13 inches is a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, scaling the dimensions and weight of a mannequin is a Routine Optimization (MPEP 2144.05 II. Routine Optimization).
Regarding claim 6, Moffat discloses wherein the compound joint of each of the first, second, third, and fourth joints comprise a ball and socket arrangement (abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Moffat discloses wherein the compound joint of each of the first and second joints is configured to simulate a neonatal infant shoulder (shoulder joints have double ball and socket joints; ¶41 and ¶52 and Fig 1).
Regarding claim 8, Moffat discloses wherein the compound joint of each of the third and fourth joints is configured to simulate a neonatal infant hip (hip joint has double ball and socket joints; ¶41 and ¶52 and Fig 1).
Regarding claim 9, Moffat discloses wherein the plurality of facet joints of the neck joint is configured to permit cervical articulation of the head relative to the torso (head 2 can be moved relative to the upper torso 3 in a manner to mimic natural movement range by a baby; ¶134).
Regarding claim 10, Moffat discloses further comprising a first ankle joint connecting the first leg to a first foot and a second ankle joint connecting the second leg to a second foot (Fig 1 and ¶42).
Regarding claim 11, Moffat discloses further comprising a first wrist joint connecting the first arm to a first hand and a second wrist joint connecting the second arm to a second hand (Fig 1 and ¶42).
Regarding claim 14, Moffat discloses further comprising moving one or more joints on the neonatal infant mannequin within a predetermined range of motion (design it in the desired amount of joint travel, therefore the motion can be predetermined; ¶34). Moffat does not explicitly disclose the infant to be a premature infant, but examiner notes that a premature neonatal mannequin falls within the category of a neonatal mannequin.
However, Sweeney teaches in their background of invention that the mannequin of a newborn can also be made of a premature baby (col 1 lines 41-43).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moffat to implement the teachings of Sweeney because the structure of a mannequin for a newborn baby can also simulate the structure for a premature newborn baby. This is beneficial to provide a training mannequin for multiple types of newborn babies (such as premature/preterm, term, post-term, etc.) to make training more realistic.
Regarding claim 17, Moffat discloses further comprising positioning a head and a neck of the neonatal infant mannequin within a predetermined range of motion (design it in the desired amount of joint travel, therefore the motion can be predetermined; ¶34). Moffat does not explicitly disclose the infant to be a premature infant, but examiner notes that a premature neonatal mannequin falls within the category of a neonatal mannequin.
However, Sweeney teaches in their background of invention that the mannequin of a newborn can also be made of a premature baby (col 1 lines 41-43).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moffat to implement the teachings of Sweeney because the structure of a mannequin for a newborn baby can also simulate the structure for a premature newborn baby. This is beneficial to provide a training mannequin for multiple types of newborn babies (such as premature/preterm, term, post-term, etc.) to make training more realistic.
Regarding claim 19, Moffat discloses wherein the compound joint of each of the first and second joints is configured to simulate a neonatal infant shoulder permitting articulation of the respective arm in multiple directions (by tuning the geometry of the shaft and socket housing opening it is possible to design in the desired amount of joint travel in ALL axes; ¶34), and wherein the compound joint of each of the third joint and the fourth joint (compound joints configured to simulate a neonatal infant hip; Fig 1, ¶42 and ¶61) is configured to simulate a neonatal infant hip permitting articulation of the respective leg in multiple directions (¶34).
Regarding claim 21, Moffat discloses wherein the joints are configured to prevent motion outside the predetermined range of motion (limiting the travel in certain axes; ¶34).
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffat in view of Sweeney and Prem in view of BIGNALL et al. (WO 2004077202 A2 see-IDS; hereinafter Bignall).
Regarding claim 4, Moffat discloses the realistic neonatal movement of each of the joints (mimic natural movement; ¶14). But does not explicitly disclose one or more sensors configured to monitor the realistic neonatal movement of each of the joints.
However, Bignall teaches further comprising one or more sensors configured to monitor the realistic neonatal movement of each of the joints (Page 6 lines 15-18).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moffat to implement the teachings of Bignall because this is also used to train medical practitioners using a model of an infant mannequin. Here the sensors would help to know if the movement is natural or not.
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffat in view of Sweeney and Prem in view of Christianson et al. (US 6050826 A; hereinafter Christianson).
Regarding claim 15, Moffat, as modified by sweeney above, does not explicitly disclose further comprising generating an alert when an attempt is made to move the one or more joints outside the predetermined range of motion.
However, Christianson teaches further comprising generating an alert (audio signal; col 3 lines 24-27) when an attempt is made to move the one or more joints outside the predetermined range of motion (predetermined non acceptable position; col 3 lines 20-24).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moffat to implement the teachings of Christianson because realistic movement of the joints of an infant mannequin should also have realistic range of motion of the joints and realistic limits to that range of motion. An alert would help with training of a medical practitioner/nurse by signaling to the medical practitioner when the movement is not natural or out of an acceptable range.
Regarding claim 20, Moffat, as modified by sweeney above, does not explicitly disclose one or more sensors configured to monitor movement of each of the joints, wherein the mannequin is configured to generate an alert when an attempt is made to move any of the joints outside the predetermined range of motion.
However, Christianson teaches one or more sensors configured to monitor movement of each of the joints (sensors monitoring position of mannequin; col 3 lines 20-26), wherein the mannequin is configured to generate an alert (audio signal; col 3 lines 24-27) when an attempt is made to move any of the joints outside the predetermined range of motion (predetermined non acceptable position; col 3 lines 20-24).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moffat to implement the teachings of Christianson because realistic movement of the joints of an infant mannequin should also have realistic range of motion of the joints and realistic limits to that range of motion. An alert would help with training of a medical practitioner/nurse by signaling to the medical practitioner when the movement is not natural or out of an acceptable range.
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 JOSE ANGELES whose telephone number is (703)756-5338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8am-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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/JOSE ANGELES/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights