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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is 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. Dependent claim 16 claims both an apparatus, i.e. “the dummy object according to claim 9”, and method steps of using the apparatus, i.e. “a method for setting the maximum stroke of a breathing movement of a dummy object”; “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)”, as per MPEP 2173.05(p).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 2, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatarinov et al. (Document ID US 20210183270 A1; 2021-06-17) in view of Laerdal et al. (Document ID US 8616889 B2; 2013-12-31).
Regarding claim 1, Tatarinov et al. teaches:
A dummy object for functional testing of child presence detection systems (CPD system), comprising a torso having a chest region, an abdominal region and a back region (Abstract, para. [0007]-[0009] and figure 2 show a dummy comprising a chest, abdominal, and back region), further comprising an upper body part movable relative to the torso for imitating a respiratory movement, the upper body part forming at least part of a chest/abdomen contour of the dummy object to be detected by the CPD system (Abstract and para. [0008]-[0009] show that the chest region, i.e. the upper body part, is designed to move in a fashion that imitates breathing, i.e. a raspatory movement), and comprising an actuator arranged to deflect the upper body part from a basic position into a deflected position (Para. [0008], para. [0046], fig. 1, and fig. 3 shows that an actuator is used to create chest movement B, i.e. a deflection of the upper body part),
Tatarinov et al. fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the dummy object has at least one elastic reset element arranged to return the upper body part from the deflected position into the basic position.
Laerdal et al. teaches:
wherein the dummy object has at least one elastic reset element arranged to return the upper body part from the deflected position into the basic position (Col 5:21-30, show that elastic bands or an elastic sheet of material, i.e. an elastic reset element, may be used to deflate the dummies lungs, i.e. return the upper body part to the basic position).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of
ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique of utilizing elastic reset elements present in the medical dummy of Laerdal et al. to the similar device of Tatarinov et al., a dummy that imitates respiration processes, in order to create an effective simulation of the respiration process. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known technique of Laerdal et al. with the similar device of Tatarinov et al. as the utilization of elastic reset elements would better facilitate the deflation of bellows present in Tatarinov et al. (Para. [0022]).
Regarding claim 2, Laerdal et al. further teaches:
The dummy object according to claim 1, wherein the elastic reset element is an expander (Col 5:21-30, show that the elastic reset element may comprise elastic bands, i.e. an expander), the expander being fixed in a first recess in the back region of the torso (Col 4:14-24 and fig. 3, show that the expander may be within groove 24 located on that back of the manikin) and being guided by means of a second recess in the torso and/or in the upper body part (Col. 6:23-38 and fig. 10, shows that the cords may additionally be guided by and fastened to ears 42a and 42b, i.e. a recess), wherein the dummy object comprises at least two expanders (Col. 6:23-38, shows that there may be at least two elastic cords).
Regarding claim 9, Tatarinov et al. further teaches:
The dummy object according to claim 1, wherein the upper body part comprises at least one stroke limiting element that is configured to limit the movement of the upper body part relative to the torso to a maximum stroke (Para. [0016] shows that the control unit, i.e. a stroke limiting element, may be used to determine the amplitude of the chest motion, i.e. limit the movement of the upper body part to a maximum stroke).
Regarding claim 10, Tatarinov et al. further teaches:
The dummy object according to claim 9, wherein the upper body part comprises at least two stroke limiting elements, wherein a stroke of the upper body part at the abdominal region is allowed to differ from a stroke of the upper body part at the chest region (Para. [0016] shows that the control unit, i.e. a stroke limiting element, may be used to determine the amplitude of the chest motion and abdominal motion independently).
Regarding claim 12, Tatarinov et al. further teaches:
The dummy object according to claim 1, wherein the upper body part is made in two parts and the parts of the upper body part are movable independently of each other (Para. [0007], shows that the mannequin comprise separate chest and abdominal regions; Para. [0010] further shows that the chest and abdominal regions can be actuated independently of each other).
Regarding claim 15, Tatarinov et al. teaches:
The dummy object comprising a torso and an upper body part that is movable relative to the torso for imitating a respiratory movement, the upper body part forming at least part of a chest/abdomen contour of the dummy object to be detected by the CPD system, further comprising an actuator configured to deflect the upper body part from a basic position into a deflected position, according to claim 1, wherein the actuator comprises an electric motor, the actuator being configured to return the upper body part from a deflected position into the basic position (Para. [0022] shows that the actuator may comprise a servomotor, i.e. an actuator comprising an electric motor).
Regarding claim 17, Tatarinov et al. in view of Laerdal et al. fails to explicitly teach the dummy object according to claim 2, wherein the dummy object comprises at least four expanders. However, Laerdal does teach the utilization of at least two elastic expanders (Col. 6:23-38). It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate a part, i.e. the two elastic expanders, of Laerdal; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Someone of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to duplicate the measurement spring of Laerdal et al. to achieve one of many predictable results such as: better distributing pressure to different parts of the air bladder or including backup expanders in case of part failure.
Regarding claim 19, Tatarinov et al. teaches:
The dummy object according to claim 10, wherein the at least two stroke limiting elements comprise at least a first stroke limiting element being attached to the abdominal region of the torso and at least a second stroke limiting element being attached to the chest region of the torso (Para. [0016] shows that the control unit, i.e. a stroke limiting element, may be used to determine the amplitude of the chest motion and abdominal motion independently; Para. [0009] further shows that the control units may comprise multiple units, be disposed on the manikin, and be disposed near their respective actuators, i.e. attached on the abdominal/chest regions of the manikin).
Regarding claim 20, Tatarinov et al. teaches:
The dummy object according to claim 15, wherein the electric motor is configured as a servomotor (Para. [0022] shows that the actuator may comprise a servomotor).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatarinov et al. (Document ID US 20210183270 A1; 2021-06-17) in view of Laerdal et al. (Document ID US 8616889 B2; 2013-12-31) and in further view of Barthod et al. (Document ID WO 2010130754 A1; 2010-11-18).
Regarding claim 3, Tatarinov et al. teaches:
The dummy object according to claim 1, wherein the dummy object comprises two legs (Para. [0007] and fig. 1 show that the dummy may comprise two legs) and the torso has a cavity, wherein the cavity is at least partially enclosed by the upper body part (Para. [0022] and fig. 1 show that the dummy may have interior bellows, i.e. a cavity enclosed by the dummy) and wherein the torso has a through-hole that is arranged (Para. [0022], shows that the system may have an exterior pump which connects to the interior pumps via a conduit, i.e. a through-hole) between the two legs and forms an access to the cavity, wherein the actuator is arranged in the cavity and is coupled to a supply system through the through-hole (Para. [0022] and fig. 1 show that the dummy may have interior bellows, i.e. an actuator in a cavity enclosed by the dummy, and that the system may have an exterior pump which connects to the interior pumps via a conduit, i.e. a through-hole).
Tatarinov et al. does not explicitly teach:
wherein the torso has a through-hole that is arranged between the two legs and forms an access to the cavity,
Barthod et al. teaches:
wherein the torso has a through-hole that is arranged between the two legs (Page 6, paragraph 7 and 4a show that the dummy may have through hole 6 and that his hole may be between two legs) and forms an access to the cavity (Fig. 6b, show a cavity in the dummy which contains an actuator and that the holes on the bottom and top of the dummy may provide access to this cavity),
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of
ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique of providing access holes to a medical dummy of Barthod et al. to the similar device of Tatarinov et al., a dummy that imitates respiration processes, in order to create an effective simulation of the respiration process. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known technique of Barthod et al. with the similar device of Tatarinov et al. as this access hole would better facility access to the actuators present within the dummy for maintenance purposes.
Claims 4-7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatarinov et al. (Document ID US 20210183270 A1; 2021-06-17) in view of Laerdal et al. (Document ID US 8616889 B2; 2013-12-31) and in further view of Pfaffl (DE 102020130404 B3; 2022-02-24).
Regarding claim 4, Tatarinov et al. fails to explicitly teach:
The dummy object according to claim 1, wherein the actuator comprises at least one inflatable balloon, wherein the at least one inflatable balloon is connected to the supply system via a compressed air hose, wherein the supply system is a pneumatic system and wherein the inflatable balloon is configured to increase its volume by supplying compressed air and to decrease the volume again by releasing the compressed air.
Pfaffl teaches:
The dummy object according to claim 1, wherein the actuator comprises at least one inflatable balloon (Page 3, paragraph 2 shows the utilization of air cushions, i.e. inflatable balloons), wherein the at least one inflatable balloon is connected to the supply system via a compressed air hose, wherein the supply system is a pneumatic system (Page 4, paragraph 6 and figure 2 show that the air cushions are connected to an air compressor, i.e. a pneumatic supply system, via a flexible connecting hose, i.e. air hose) and wherein the inflatable balloon is configured to increase its volume by supplying compressed air and to decrease the volume again by releasing the compressed air (Page 3, paragraphs 2-4 show the compressed air is used to inflate or deflate the air cushions).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of
ordinary skill in the art to apply the known techniques regarding the pneumatic system of Pfaffl’s medical dummy to the similar device of Tatarinov et al., a dummy that imitates respiration processes that may comprise inflatable bellows (Para. [0022]), in order to create an effective simulation of the respiration process. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known techniques of Pfaffl with the similar device of Tatarinov et al. as the utilization of a valve control unit and control unit would better allow for the precise inflation/deflation control in regards to the inflatable bellows.
Regarding claim 5, Pfaffl further teaches:
The dummy object according to claim 4, wherein the pneumatic system comprises a valve unit and a control unit, which are configured to supply air to and release air from the at least one inflatable balloon in a controlled manner (Page 3, paragraphs 2-4 show a valve control unit and control device are used to control the supply or release of air from the air cushions).
Regarding claim 6, Tatarinov et al. teaches:
The dummy object according to claim 5, wherein the pneumatic system is configured such that, by means of the controlled air supply and the accompanying deflection of the upper body part from the basic position into the deflected position, the movement of the human chest and abdominal region during inhalation is simulated (Para. [0022], fig. 3, and [0046], shows that as the bellows are inflated the chest of the dummy is moved along motion B, i.e. into a deflected position, to simulate inhalation).
Regarding claim 7, Tatarinov et al. teaches:
The dummy object according to claim 5, wherein the pneumatic system is configured such that by means of the controlled release of air in connection with the resetting element the upper body part is returned from the deflected position into the basic position and the movement of the human chest and abdominal region during exhalation is simulated (Para. [0022], fig. 3, and [0046], shows that as the bellows are deflated the chest of the dummy is moved along motion B, i.e. into a basic position, to simulate exhalation).
Regarding claim 18, Pfaffl further teaches:
The dummy object according to claim 4, wherein the actuator comprises at least two inflatable balloons (Fig. 2 shows the utilization of at least two air balloons 131 and 132).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatarinov et al. (Document ID US 20210183270 A1; 2021-06-17) in view of Laerdal et al. (Document ID US 8616889 B2; 2013-12-31) and Pfaffl (DE 102020130404 B3; 2022-02-24) and in further view of Bergs et al. (US 20160314718 A1; 2016-10-27).
Regarding claim 8, Pfaffl further teaches:
The dummy object according to claim 5, wherein a respiratory rate is set via a duration of the air supply and the air release and a respiratory frequency is set via a frequency of the air supply and the air release (Page 3, paragraphs 2-3 show that that the repository rate and stroke, i.e. the frequency and duration of air supply and release, can be set).
Tatarinov et al. in view of Laerdal et al. and Pfaffl fails to explicitly teach:
Wherein the valve unit is controlled by means of pulse width modulation,
Bergs et al. teaches:
Wherein the valve unit is controlled by means of pulse width modulation (Para. [0092], [0124], and [0156] show that air bladders can be controlled via pulse width modulation to simulate breathing in a dummy),
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of
ordinary skill in the art to apply the known techniques regarding the utilization of pulse width modulation to control and airbladder’s inflation/deflation in a medical dummy of Bergs et al. to the similar device of Tatarinov et al., a dummy that imitates respiration processes that may comprise inflatable bellows (Para. [0022]), in order to create an effective simulation of the respiration process. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known techniques of Bergs et al. with the similar device of Tatarinov et al. as the utilization of pulse width modulation would better allow for the precise inflation/deflation control in regards to the inflatable bellows.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatarinov et al. (Document ID US 20210183270 A1; 2021-06-17) in view of Laerdal et al. (Document ID US 8616889 B2; 2013-12-31) and Pfaffl (DE 102020130404 B3; 2022-02-24) and in further view of Mestad et al. (WO 2005122111 A1; 2005-12-22) and Bergs et al. (US 20160314718 A1; 2016-10-27).
Regarding claim 13, Tatarinov et al. in view of Laerdal et al. and Pfaffl fails to explicitly teach:
The dummy object according to claim 4, wherein the inflatable balloon is associated with a pressure silencer, a compressed air filter and a mechanical pressure limiter, wherein the pressure in the balloon is continuously monitored, and wherein the pressure in the balloon should not exceed 2 bar.
Mestad et al. teaches:
The dummy object according to claim 4, wherein the inflatable balloon is associated with a pressure silencer (Page 3, lines 6-9 show the utilization of a silencer), a compressed air filter and a mechanical pressure limiter, wherein the pressure in the balloon is continuously monitored, and wherein the pressure in the balloon should not exceed 2 bar (Page 2, lines 21-32 and page 3, lines 1-4 show that the air bladder is kept at a pressure no greater than 2 bar via pressure regulator 5, i.e. a mechanical pressure limiter).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of
ordinary skill in the art to apply the known techniques regarding the utilization of a pressure limiter to control the pressure of an air bladder in a medical dummy of Mestad et al. to the similar device of Tatarinov et al., a dummy that imitates respiration processes that may comprise inflatable bellows (Para. [0022]), in order to create an effective simulation of the respiration process. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known techniques of Mestad et al. with the similar device of Tatarinov et al. as the keeping the pressure in an air bladder under 2 bar ensures that the air bladder does not experience unsafe pressure levels, thus preventing breakage.
Bergs et al teaches:
The dummy object according to claim 4, wherein the inflatable balloon is associated with a compressed air filter (Para. [0157], shows that the bladder system may comprise a moisture filter).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of
ordinary skill in the art to apply the known techniques regarding the utilization of an air filter alongside air bladders in a medical dummy of Bergs et al. to the similar device of Tatarinov et al., a dummy that imitates respiration processes that may comprise inflatable bellows (Para. [0022]), in order to create an effective simulation of the respiration process. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known techniques of Bergs et al. with the similar device of Tatarinov et al. as the utilization of an air filter would better prevent particulates from entering the medical dummy.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatarinov et al. (Document ID US 20210183270 A1; 2021-06-17) in view of Laerdal et al. (Document ID US 8616889 B2; 2013-12-31) and in further view of Shvindt et al. (RU 2743410 C2; 2021-02-18).
Regarding claim 14, Tatarinov et al. fails to teach:
The dummy object according to claim 1, wherein the actuator comprises at least one rotationally driven eccentric, by means of which the upper body part is deflectable from the basic position into the deflected position.
Shvindt et al. teaches:
The dummy object according to claim 1, wherein the actuator comprises at least one rotationally driven eccentric, by means of which the upper body part is deflectable from the basic position into the deflected position (Page 11, paragraphs 15-17 and figure 1 shows that the turning of electric motor 7 drives gear wheel 8, i.e. a rotationally driven eccentric, which facilitates the movement of the chest).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of
ordinary skill in the art to apply the known techniques regarding the utilization of a rotationally driven eccentric to actuate the chest of a medical dummy present in Shvindt et al. to the similar device of Tatarinov et al., a dummy that imitates respiration processes that may comprise inflatable bellows (Para. [0022]), in order to create an effective simulation of the respiration process. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known techniques of Shvindt et al. with the similar device of Tatarinov et al. as the utilization of this actuation does not require the source of compressed air that would be demanded of a system comprising inflatable bellows, thus decreasing the external footprint of the dummy.
Summary
Claim 11 is objected to
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 1-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 103
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY JAMES BULTHUIS whose telephone number is (703)756-1060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:30-5:30.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/A.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715