Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/046,288

HEMORRHAGE CONTROL TRAINING DEVICE, METHOD, AND SYSTEM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Oct 13, 2022
Examiner
ANGELES, JOSE
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
41%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 41% of resolved cases
41%
Career Allow Rate
7 granted / 17 resolved
-28.8% vs TC avg
Strong +71% interview lift
Without
With
+71.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
61
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
13.2%
-26.8% vs TC avg
§103
39.1%
-0.9% vs TC avg
§102
19.5%
-20.5% vs TC avg
§112
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 17 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 11/19/2025. Presently, claims 1-6 and 8-15 are now pending. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed on 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s representative asserts that the amended claims limitations are not met. However, the rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-15 is maintained as presented below. Applicant’s representative alleges the following: Regarding Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, no combination of Alderson, King, and Darrah can render obvious either of those claims at least because that combination of references does not describe a table having a lower portion defining a cistern to retain the fluid within the pumping system. Regarding point (1), the examiner notes Alderson does teach or disclose these limitations in the instant rejection. Applicant’s representative argues that Alderson do not describe such a table. Alderson generally describes a medical training mannequin with simulated blood flow control means through a series of pumps and tubes providing realistic wound site training. Alderson, Col. 1, lines 1-15. As can be seen in FIG. 1-3 of Alderson, the reservoir of Alderson is coupled directly to the manikin and is independent of the table. In fact, Alderson discloses that "the manikin [and pumping system] is independent of any base or supporting structure so that it can be operated in any body position." Alderson, Col. 1, line 18. In response to the arguments, Alderson does meet the amended limitations of claim 1 requiring “the table including a cistern to store fluid, the cistern coupled to a lower surface of the table beneath the upper surface”. By definition, a cistern is a type of tank or reservoir for storing liquids, and the reservoir 32 (Fig 3) in Alderson meets this limitation. Furthermore, the reservoir 32 is located under the table and coupled through a drain 36 and tube 38 to the lower surface of the table beneath the upper surface as shown in Fig 3 of Alderson. Regarding claim 10, since it recites similar features to claim 1, they will be rejected as stated above. Therefore, the rejection is maintained as present below. Applicant’s representative argues that dependent claims 2-6, 8-9, and 11-13 depend from claims 1 and 10, respectively. Therefore, the dependent claims are submitted to be patentable for at least the same or similar reasons. Since each dependent claim is also deemed to define an additional aspect of the invention, individual consideration of the patentability of each dependent claim on its own merits is respectfully requested. 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 § 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 1-6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuel W. Alderson (US 3027655 A; hereinafter Alderson) in view of King (US 9342996 B2; hereinafter King). Regarding claim 1, Alderson discloses a hemorrhage control training device (shown in Fig 1), comprising: a table (surface of table shown in Fig 1) having an upper surface dimensioned to accommodate at least one hemorrhage control task trainer (synthetic casualty 10; Fig 1), the table including a cistern to store fluid (cistern by definition is a type of tank or reservoir to store liquids and there is a reservoir 32 in Fig 1), the cistern coupled to a lower surface of the table beneath the upper surface (reservoir coupled to the lower surface of the table beneath the upper surface through a drain 36 and tube 38 as shown in Fig 3 and col 3 lines 5-13); and a pumping system fluidly coupled to the cistern (fluidly connected by taking a portion of the blood from the pump back to the reservoir in col 3 lines 2-3), the pumping system comprising: one or more pumps (pumps; col 2 lines 60-63); a pump controller (flow control unit 28; Fig 1); and one or more outlets disposed along the at least one hemorrhage control task trainer (multiple outlets shown in Fig 1). Alderson does not explicitly disclose wherein the pump controller is configured to change a flow type and a pressure of a fluid in the pumping system. However, King teaches wherein the pump controller is configured to change a flow type and a pressure of a fluid in the pumping system (control flow rate; col 5 lines 17-19). 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 Alderson to implement the teachings of king to control the blood flow to make a realistic hemorrhage simulation. For example, arterial bleeding can be high pressure, spurting, and intermittent while venous bleeding, on the other hand, can be low pressure and continuous. Regarding claim 2, Alderson discloses wherein the fluid is simulated blood (blood; col 2 lines 50-55). Regarding claim 3, Alderson discloses wherein the one or more outlets comprise at least two outlets (multiple outlets from different tubes shown in Fig 1 and Fig 2). Regarding claim 4, Alderson does not explicitly disclose the pumping system further comprises a distribution manifold for selectively distributing two or more flows of the fluid. However, King focuses on a system for simulating one or more hemorrhages King teaches wherein the pumping system further comprises a distribution manifold for selectively distributing two or more flows of the fluid (manifold shown in Fig 10). 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 Alderson to implement the teachings of king to implement a distribution manifold to help control the blood flow through different routes to make a realistic hemorrhage simulation. For example, arterial bleeding can be high pressure, spurting, and intermittent while venous bleeding, on the other hand, can be low pressure and continuous. Regarding claim 5, Alderson discloses wherein the at least one hemorrhage control task trainer comprises an adult human-sized hemorrhage control task trainer (synthetic casualty 10; Fig 1). Regarding claim 6, Alderson discloses further comprising a fluid retention system operatively associated with the table so that two or more flows of the fluid flows back to the cistern (taking blood back to reservoir 32; col 3 lines 1-3). Regarding claim 14, Alderson does not explicitly disclose wherein the flow type is pulse based such that the flow is urged through pulses that have a magnitude substantially greater than non-pulse urgings. However, King teaches wherein the flow type is pulse based such that the flow is urged through pulses that have a magnitude substantially greater than non-pulse urgings (this is inherent to having a pulse-based flow and King already discloses that it can implement any type of flow because it allows you to control the flow rate and by controlling flow rate you can have a pulse-based flow; Col 5 lines 17-19). 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 Alderson to implement the teachings of king to control the blood flow to make a realistic hemorrhage simulation. For example, arterial bleeding can be high pressure, spurting, and intermittent while venous bleeding, on the other hand, can be low pressure and continuous. Claims 8-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alderson in view of King in view of Darrah et al. (US 20140228755 A1; hereinafter Darrah). Regarding claim 8, Alderson does not explicitly disclose further comprising a fluid temperature regulator configured to selectively control a temperature of the fluid. However, Darrah teaches further comprising a fluid temperature regulator configured to selectively control a temperature of the fluid (ability to regulate temperature of fluid; ¶86). 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 Alderson to implement the teachings of Darrah because Darrah implements a fluid delivery system can have temperature control to deliver bio-compatible fluids like blood to a patient during treatment of trauma and hemorrhage. Alderson implements a temperature regulator like a heater in order to create a realistic feel of warm blood which mimics Darrah regulating blood temperature to match body core temperature of a human. Regarding claim 9, Alderson does not explicitly disclose herein the flow type comprises continuous and intermittent. However, King teaches wherein the flow type comprises continuous and intermittent (this is inherent to controlling flow rate because by controlling flow rate you can have continuous or intermittent flow; Col 5 lines 17-19). 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 Alderson to implement the teachings of king to control the blood flow to make a realistic hemorrhage simulation. For example, arterial bleeding can be high pressure, spurting, and intermittent while venous bleeding, on the other hand, can be low pressure and continuous. Regarding claim 10, Alderson discloses a hemorrhage control training system, comprising: a table having an upper surface (surface of table shown in Fig 1) dimensioned to accommodate at least one hemorrhage control task trainer (synthetic casualty 10; Fig 1), the table including a cistern to store fluid (cistern by definition is a type of tank or reservoir to store liquids and there is a reservoir 32 in Fig 1), the cistern coupled to a lower surface of the table beneath the upper surface (reservoir coupled to the lower surface of the table beneath the upper surface through a drain 36 and tube 38 as shown in Fig 3 and col 3 lines 5-13); a pumping system fluidly coupled to the cistern (fluidly connected by taking a portion of the blood from the pump back to the reservoir in col 3 lines 2-3), the pumping system comprising: one or more pumps (pumps; col 2 lines 60-63); a pump controller (flow control unit 28; Fig 1); and a plurality of outlets disposed along the hemorrhage control task trainer (multiple outlets shown in Fig 1); a fluid retention system operatively associated with the surface so that the two or more flows of the simulated blood flow back to the cistern (taking blood back to reservoir 32; col 3 lines 1-3). Alderson does not explicitly disclose a distribution manifold for selectively distributing two or more flows of simulated blood; wherein the pump controller is configured to change a flow type and a pressure of the simulated blood in the pumping system; and a simulated blood temperature regulator configured to selectively control a temperature of the simulated blood. However, King teaches a distribution manifold for selectively distributing two or more flows of the simulated blood (manifold shown in Fig 10); wherein the pump controller is configured to change a flow type and a pressure of the simulated blood in the pumping system (control flow rate; col 5 lines 17-19). 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 Alderson to implement the teachings of king to implement a distribution manifold to help control the blood flow through different routes to make a realistic hemorrhage simulation. For example, arterial bleeding can be high pressure, spurting, and intermittent while venous bleeding, on the other hand, can be low pressure and continuous. Darrah teaches a simulated blood temperature regulator configured to selectively control a temperature of the simulated blood (ability to regulate temperature of fluid; ¶86). 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 Alderson to implement the teachings of Darrah because Darrah implements a fluid delivery system can have temperature control to deliver bio-compatible fluids like blood to a patient during treatment of trauma and hemorrhage. Implementing a temperature regulator like a heater can create a realistic feel of warm blood to match body core temperature of a human. Regarding claim 11, King teaches wherein the flow type comprises continuous and intermittent (this is inherent to controlling flow rate because by controlling flow rate you can have continuous or intermittent flow; Col 5 lines 17-19). 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 Alderson to implement the teachings of king to control the blood flow to make a realistic hemorrhage simulation. For example, arterial bleeding can be high pressure, spurting, and intermittent while venous bleeding, on the other hand, can be low pressure and continuous. Regarding claim 12, Alderson discloses placing a human-sized hemorrhage control task trainer on the upper surface thereof (Fig 1); and selectively controlling the pumping system to simulate two or more bleed sites along the human-sized hemorrhage control task trainer (various bleeding injuries; col 1 lines 51-54). Regarding claim 13, Alderson does not disclose controlling the simulated blood temperature regulator so that simulated blood leaving each bleed site is approximately a temperature of human blood. However, Darrah teaches controlling the simulated blood temperature regulator so that simulated blood leaving each bleed site is approximately a temperature of human blood (body core temperature; ¶86). 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 Alderson to implement the teachings of Darrah because implementing a fluid delivery system can have temperature control to deliver bio-compatible fluids like blood to a patient during treatment of trauma and hemorrhage. Implementing a temperature regulator like a heater can create a realistic feel of warm blood to match body core temperature of a human. Regarding claim 15, Alderson does not disclose wherein the selectively control a temperature of the fluid includes rewarming the fluid. However, Darrah teaches wherein the selectively control a temperature of the fluid includes rewarming the fluid (this is inherent if there is an ability to regulate temperature of fluid as shown in ¶86). 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 Alderson to implement the teachings of Darrah because Darrah implements a fluid delivery system can have temperature control to deliver bio-compatible fluids like blood to a patient during treatment of trauma and hemorrhage. Implementing a temperature regulator like a heater can create a realistic feel of warm blood to match body core temperature of a human. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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-Fri 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 /DMITRY SUHOL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 13, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 19, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 05, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 23, 2025
Interview Requested
Jan 13, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 14, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12548464
TILE BASED LOGICAL TEACHING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12390314
TOOTH MODEL FOR TOOTH TREATMENT PRACTICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 19, 2025
Patent 12387620
Variable Force Keyboard
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 12, 2025
Patent 12345497
HIGH-PRESSURE AIR DRUM MAGAZINE FOR BELT FED WEAPON
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 01, 2025
Patent 12293677
AIRCRAFT COCKPIT TRAINING SIMULATOR AND ASSOCIATED METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted May 06, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
41%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+71.4%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 17 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month