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. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains legal phraseology. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use the word “means” or “step” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the word “means” or “step” is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “Control means” in claim s 1 , 2, 7, 9, 11, 17, and 18 . Based on [00142] of the Specification and Figure 3 of the Drawings, the component is interpreted as a hardware device coupled to the simulator to simulate movement within the chamber as if there were a portion of a living body disposed inside. Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitations recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are: “Chamber arm fixing means” in claim s 3 and 4 ; “First fixing means” in claim s 13, 19, 24 , and 25 ; “Second fixing means” in claim s 14 and 25 ; “Wall fixing means” in claim 20; and “Fixing means” in claim 23 . Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends to have these limitatio n s interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim s 1-26 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claims are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claims must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited. Due to the plethora of indefinite language, t he following rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are intended as examples to guide the Applicant . The Examiner urges the Applicant to fully review the instant application to correct all indefinite language. Claim 1 recites the limitation " control means " in line 8 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 recites the limitation "chamber arm fixing means" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the left ventricle" in lines 2 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the ventricle" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation “the left heart” and “the right heart” in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation "chordae" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation "proximal end" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation "control means" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 recites the limitation " first fixing means " in line 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 recites the limitation " second fixing means " in line 4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 18 recites the limitation " the chamber container " in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 recites the limitation " first fixing means " in line 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 recites the limitation "the distal end" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 recites the limitation "the proximal end" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 recites the limitation "wall fixing means" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 21 recites the limitation "the position of the first rotational joint" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 21 recites the limitation "the extension of the first extendable rod" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 22 recites the limitation "the arm" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 23 recites the limitation "the fixing means" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 25 recites the limitation "second fixing means" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 26 recites the limitation "the position of the second rotational joint" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 26 recites the limitation "the extension of the second extendable rod" in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “ towards ” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ towards ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a result of using the relative term “towards”, the structural relationship between the “chamber arm rotational joint” and “the proximal end” are indefinite and the structural relationship between the “chamber arm fixing means” and the “distal end” are indefinite. The term “ periodical ” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ periodical ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a result of using the relative term “periodical”, the structural relationship between the “basal-apical axis” and the “ventricle” is indefinite . This creates ambiguity throughout the “simulation procedure” as the “simulation procedure” is dependent on the relationship between these elements. The term “ towards ” in claim 1 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ towards ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a result of using the relative term “towards”, the structural relationship between the “first fixing means” and the “distal end” are indefinite, which further causes ambiguity within the structure of the “simulation papillary muscle”. The term “ towards ” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ towards ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a result of using the relative term “towards”, the structural relationship between the “second rotational joint” and the “distal end” are indefinite, which further causes ambiguity within the structure of the “simulation chamber”. The term “ towards ” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ towards ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a result of using the relative term “towards”, the structural relationship between the “first fixing means” and “the distal end” are indefinite, which further causes ambiguity within the structure of the “simulation chamber”. The term “ towards ” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ towards ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a result of using the relative term “towards”, the structural relationship between the “first rotational joint” and the “proximal end” are indefinite. The term “ towards ” in claim 25 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ towards ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a result of using the relative term “towards”, the structural relationship between the “second fixing means” and “the distal end of the valve arm” are indefinite, which further causes ambiguity within the structure of the “simulated papillary muscle in the simulation chamber”. Claims 2-8 recite “a simulator”, yet the claims depend on claim 1, which recites “a simulator”. It is unclear whether the claims are intending to recite a new and separate simulator for each claim or whether the claims are all referring to the same simulator; therefore, the recited simulator(s) in the claims is/are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the Applicant intended for the claims to all refer to the same simulator. Claims 10-18 recite “a simulator”, yet the claims depend on claim 9, which recites “a simulator”. It is unclear whether the claims are intending to recite a new and separate simulator for each claim or whether the claims are all referring to the same simulator; therefore, the recited simulator(s) in the claims is/are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the Applicant intended for the claims to all refer to the same simulator. Claims 20-24 recite “a chamber arm”, yet the claims depend on claim 19, which recites “a chamber arm”. It is unclear whether the claims are intending to recite a new and separate chamber arm for each claim or whether the claims are all referring to the same chamber arm; therefore, the recited chamber arm(s) in the claims is/are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the Applicant intended for the claims to all refer to the same chamber arm. Claims 2 5 - 26 recite “a valve arm”, yet the claims depend on claim 9, which recites a “valve arm”. It is unclear whether the claims are intending to recite a new and separate valve arm for each claim or whether the claims are all referring to the same valve arm; therefore, the recited valve arm(s) in the claims is/are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the Applicant intended for the claims to all refer to the same valve arm. Claim 7 recites “the ventricle”, yet earlier in the claim “the left ventricle” is recited. It is unclear whether the claim is intending to recite a new and separate ventricle, which would result in the recitation of “the ventricle” lacking antecedent basis, or whether the claim is referring to the same “left ventricle”; therefore, the recited ventricle(s) in the claim is/are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the Applicant intended for the claim to refer to the same left ventricle. Claim 9 recites “a distal end of the valve arm”, yet earlier in the claim “the distal end of the valve arm” is recited. It is unclear whether the claim is intending to recite a new and separate distal end of the valve arm or whether the claim is referring to the same “distal end of the valve arm”; therefore, the recited distal end(s) of the valve arm in the claim is/are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the Applicant intended for the claim to refer to the same distal end of the valve arm. Claim 9 recites a “proximal end”, yet earlier in the claim a “proximal end” is recited. It is unclear whether the claim is intending to recite a new and separate proximal end or whether the claim is referring to the same “proximal end”; therefore, the recited proximal end(s) in the claim is/are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the Applicant intended for the claim to refer to the same proximal end. Claim 10 recites “a distal end”, yet depends on claim 9, which recites a “distal end of the valve arm”. It is unclear whether the claim is intending to recite a new and separate distal end or whether the claim is referring to the same “distal end of the valve arm” recited in claim 9; therefore, the recited distal end in the claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the Applicant intended for the claim to refer to the same distal end of the valve arm. Claim 1 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structure within the claim between various elements. Specifically, the claim recites a “proximal end” and a “distal end” which are relative term s intended to note an element is closer to another element and an element is further from another element, respectively ; however, the claim does not recite this structure as previous claims have done by stating , for example, a “proximal end of the valve arm” or a “distal end of the valve arm”. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structure within the claim between various elements. Specifically, the claim recites a “proximal end” which is a relative term intended to note an element is closer to another; however, the claim does not recite this structure as previous claims have done by stating, for example, a “proximal end of the valve arm”. Claim s 19 and 22 recite an “arm”. Although the claims do not depend on any preceding claims, it is unclear, when analyzing the invention as a whole, whether the “arm” is the same as the “valve arm” in preceding claims or a newly introduced “arm”. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the Applicant intended for the claim to refer to the same valve arm as preceding claims. Claim 23 recites a “fixing means”, yet depends on claim 19, which recites a “ first fixing means ”. It is unclear whether the claim is intending to recite a new and separate fixing means (e.g., a second fixing means) or whether the claim is referring to the same “ first fixing means ” recited in claim 1 9; therefore, the recited fixing means in the claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the Applicant intended for the claim to refer to the same first fixing means . Claim 25 recites a “simulated papillary muscle”, yet depends on claim 9, which recites a “simulation papillary muscle”. It is unclear whether the claim is intending to recite a new and separate simulated/simulation papillary muscle or whether the claim is referring to the same “simulation papillary muscle” recited in claim 9; therefore, the recited simulated papillary muscle in the claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the Applicant intended for the claim to refer to the same simulation papillary muscle. The term “ respective ” in claim s 2 and 26 is a relative term which renders the claim s indefinite. The term “ respective ” is not defined by the claim s , the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, the Oxford English Dictionary defines “respective” as “h aving reference or relation to something; relative, comparative. ” However, claim 2 does not clearly recite the various elements that are meant to relate to each other alongside the “respective control motor”; furthermore, claim 26 does not clearly recite the various elements that are meant to relate to each other alongside the “joint controlling wires” and “extension controlling wire”. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the Applicant did not intend to use the term “respective” within claim s 2 and 26. 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)(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. 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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Woo [ US20210268643A1 ] . Regarding claim 1 , Woo discloses: A simulator ( Woo, Claim 1, “…a heart simulator…” ) comprising: a chamber container ( Woo, Figs 1A-1B ) ; a flexible simulation chamber disposed inside the chamber container and simulating a chamber of a living body ( Woo, Figs 2A-2B ) ; at least one chamber arm disposed inside the chamber container ( Woo, [0025], “The base can include six servo motors each connected to a corresponding one of the six rods with a servo arm member such that rotations of the servo motors control position and orientation of the end-effector plate (e.g., FIG. 2A).” ) , a distal end of the chamber arm being fixed relative to a point on the simulation chamber ( Woo, Figs 2A-2B ) and a position of the distal end being controllable from a proximal end ( Woo, Figs 2A-2B, The servo arm member 206 is placed on the proximal end which controls the position of the distal end. ) ; and control means for controlling a simulation procedure to simulate movement of the chamber of the living body ( Woo, [0016], “The robotic actuators are driven by controller 112.” ) , the control means being adapted to change the position of the distal end during the simulation procedure ( Woo, [0018], “where the heart simulator includes one or more robotic actuators having three positional degrees of freedom and at least one rotational degree of freedom for motion; ” ) . Regarding claim 2 , Woo discloses: A simulator according to claim 1, wherein: the proximal end of the chamber arm is fixed to a wall of the chamber container ( Woo, [0041], “A modified heart simulator left ventricular chamber was built to mount the IPM robots, allowing for additional operating space without collisions between the legs or servo arms (FIG. 2B).” ) ; a respective control motor is disposed adjacent the wall of the chamber container and connected to the proximal end ( Woo, [0039], “Each IPM robot uses a modified Stewart platform design including six servo motors with actuating rods that extend to an end-effector platform … ” ) ; and the control means is arranged to control the control motor to change the position of the distal end of the chamber arm ( Woo, [0041], “Because this mechanism provides three translational and three rotational degrees of freedom, any position and orientation within the reachable system workspace can be uniquely specified by a combination of servo joint angles.” ) . Regarding claim 3 , Woo discloses: A simulator according to claim 1, wherein the chamber arm comprises: a chamber arm rotational joint towards the proximal end ( Woo, [0040], “The rods are driven by servo motors (one of which is referenced as 208 on FIG. 2A) via servo arm members (one of which is referenced as 206 on FIG. 2A). Here J1 denotes the first joint at the base of the servo arm member and J2 denotes the second joint connecting the servo arm member to the rod.” ) ; chamber arm fixing means towards the distal end for fixing to the simulation chamber ( Woo, [0039], “Each IPM robot uses a modified Stewart platform design including six servo motors with actuating rods that extend to an end-effector platform with preformed suture perforations for papillary muscle attachment, as shown on FIG. 2A.” ) ; and a chamber arm extendable rod between the chamber arm rotational joint and the chamber arm fixing means ( Woo, [0026], “…the robotic actuators can each include a base, an end-effector plate, and six rods connecting the base to the end-effector plate. Each rod can include a linear actuator such that length changes of the linear actuators control position and orientation of the end-effector plate.” ) . Regarding claim 4 , Woo discloses: A simulator according to claim 3, wherein the chamber arm fixing means comprises plates arranged on opposite sides of the simulation chamber for clamping the simulation chamber ( Woo, [0025], “…the robotic actuators can each include a base, an end-effector plate, and six rods connecting the base to the end-effector plate.” ) . Regarding claim 5 , Woo discloses: A simulator according to claim 3, wherein the chamber arm fixing means is attached to the extendable rod with a ball joint ( Woo, [0026], “The black circles on FIG. 6 are spherical joints that permit relative rotation of the rods vs. the base and end-effector plates.” ) . Regarding claim 6 , Woo discloses: A simulator according to claim 3, wherein the position of the or each rotational joint is controlled by respective joint controlling wires and the extension of the or each extendable rod is controlled by a respective extension controlling wire ( As cited above, Woo discloses joints being controlled to move via servo motors. The servo motors would be connected to various wires as one of ordinary skill would understand since these wires are necessary to provide power, ground, and PWM to the servo motors. ) . Regarding claim 7 , Woo discloses: A simulator according claim 1, wherein the simulation chamber simulates the left ventricle ( Woo, [0041], “A modified heart simulator left ventricular chamber was built to mount the IPM robots…” ) ; and the control means is arranged to control the position of the distal end of the chamber arm to cause the left ventricle to rotate about a basal-apical axis in synchronisation with a periodical beating movement of the ventricle during the simulation procedure ( Woo, [0046], “Using a series of rotation matrices along with our robot-controlled system, this tracked CT data allowed us to mimic the exact positions and orientations of the native papillary muscle cardiac trajectory with our IPM robot.” ) . Regarding claim 8 , Woo discloses: A simulator according to claim 1 for simulating at least one of the left heart and the right heart ( Woo, [0015], “FIGS. 1A-B schematically show method and apparatus of a left heart simulator 100 according to principles of the invention.” ) . Regarding claim 9 , Woo discloses: A simulator comprising: a flexible simulation chamber simulating a chamber of a living body, the simulation chamber having at least one opening ( Woo, Figs 1A-4 ) ; a valve comprising leaflets; a simulation papillary muscle; and chordae connecting the simulation papillary muscle and the leaflets ( Woo, [0047], “In this study, mitral valves were carefully excised from locally obtained fresh porcine hearts, preserving the annulus, leaflets, papillary muscles, and chordae tendineae” ) ; at least one valve arm extending through the simulation chamber, so that the distal end of the valve arm is disposed in the simulation chamber and proximal end is disposed outside the simulation chamber, a distal end of the valve arm being fixed relative to the simulation papillary muscle (Figs 2A-3) and a position of the distal end of the valve arm being controllable from a proximal end ( See claim 1 for citations ) ; and control means for controlling a simulation procedure ( Woo, [0016], “The robotic actuators are driven by controller 112.” ) . Regarding claim 1 0 , Woo discloses: A simulator according to claim 9, wherein the position of the distal end is adjustable to simulate end-systole positions of the papillary muscle of the living body ( Woo, [0052], “Maximum chordal forces were calculated as the average force during systole … ” ) . Regarding claim 1 1 , Woo discloses: A simulator according to claim 9, the control means being adapted to change the position of the distal end of the valve arm during the simulation procedure ( Woo, [0018], “where the heart simulator includes one or more robotic actuators having three positional degrees of freedom and at least one rotational degree of freedom for motion; ” ) . Regarding claim 1 2 , Woo discloses: A simulator according to claim 9, wherein the position of the distal end of the valve arm can be controlled without affecting movement of the simulation chamber ( Woo, [0011], “FIGS. 5A-B shows chordae force measurement results with and without simulated motion of papillary muscles in the heart simulator.” ) . Regarding claim 1 3 , Woo discloses: A simulator according to claim 12, wherein the valve arm comprises: a first rotational joint disposed inside the simulation chamber ( Woo, [0026], “The black circles on FIG. 6 are spherical joints that permit relative rotation of the rods vs. the base and end-effector plates.” ) ; first fixing means towards the distal end for fixing to the simulation papillary muscle ( Woo, Figs 1A-2B ) ; and a first extendable rod between the first rotational joint and the fixing means ( Woo, [0026], “…the robotic actuators can each include a base, an end-effector plate, and six rods connecting the base to the end-effector plate. Each rod can include a linear actuator such that length changes of the linear actuators control position and orientation of the end-effector plate.” ) . Regarding claim 1 4 , Woo discloses a plurality of rotational joints and rods ( see citations above ). Claim 14 maintains the same claim limitation structure as above, aside from introducing a second version of the first version introduced above (e.g., the claims above introduce a first rotational joint and claim 14 introduces a second rotational joint). Regarding claim 1 5 , Woo discloses: A simulator according to claim 9, further comprising: a second simulation chamber , wherein the first and second simulation chambers are connected via the opening with the valve in between them ( Woo, Figs 1A-1B ) . Regarding claim 16 , the claim share s similar limitations to claim 1 . For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claim 1 above. Regarding claim 17 , the claim share s similar limitations to claim 2 . For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claim 2 above. Regarding claim 18 , the claim share s similar limitations to claim 1 . For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claim 1 above. Regarding claim 1 9 , the claim shares similar limitations to claims 1 and 3. For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claims 1 and 3 above. Regarding claim s 20 and 2 2 , the claims share similar limitations to claim 2 . For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claim 2 above. Regarding claim 2 3 , the claim share s similar limitations to claim 4 . For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claim 4 above. Regarding claim 2 4 , the claim share s similar limitations to claim 5 . For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claim 5 above. Regarding claims 2 5 , the claim share s similar limitations to claim 14 . For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claim 14 above. Regarding claim s 21 and 26 , the claims share similar limitations to claim 6 . For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claim 6 above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ZACHARY JOSEPH POLLOCK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-5952 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT XUAN THAI can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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