DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 5/22/23 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because document C6 is not in English and does not include an English translation. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 14, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 3, and 4 recite limitations related to the air trapping module "configured to prevent air flow along the first air path". However, claim 1, from which claims 2-4 depend, define the air trapping module as being “along a second air path.” It is unclear how the air trapping module is configured to prevent air flow along the first air path while being positioned along separate second air path. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not particularly pointed out. Therefore, these limitations render claim 2-4, and the dependent claims thereof based on their incorporation by reference, indefinite.
Claim 14 defines the adjustable valve as positioned “along a third air path”, but claim 1 which claim 14 depends from, defines the adjustable valve along a first air path. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not particularly pointed out. Therefore, claim 14 contradicts the limitation of claim 1, thus rendering claim 14 indefinite.
Claim 14 defines the air trapping module as being “along a fourth air path”, but claim 1 which claim 14 depends from, defines the air trapping module along a second air path. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not particularly pointed out. Therefore, claim 14 contradicts the limitation of claim 1, thus rendering claim 14 indefinite.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the air trapping module allows air flow along the first air path” and “the air trapping module prevents air flow along the first air path”. However, claim 19, from which claim 26 depends, define the air trapping module as being “along a second air path.” It is unclear how the air trapping module is configured to perform the recited functions along the first air path while being positioned along separate second air path. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not particularly pointed out. Therefore, these limitations render claim 26, and the dependent claims thereof based on their incorporation by reference, indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 11-14, 16-20, 26, and 29-35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2004/0157199 A1 to EGGERT in view of US 6,910,896 B1 to OWENS.
Regarding claim 1, EGGERT teaches a system (500 - "portable care simulator system", figs. 24-26; para [0108], [0119]), comprising: a patient simulator having a simulated body portion (See fig. 24; para [0108]; simulator system 500 comprises a fully articulating manikin); and an asthma simulation module (See figs. 25-26; para [0119]. [0126]) positioned within the simulated body portion (See figs. 24-25; para [0108]), the asthma simulation module including: a first simulated lung (left 574 - "lung", figs. 24-25); a valve (594 - "check valve", fig. 25; para [0123]-[0125]) along a first air path (See fig. 25; see path from airway 535, through valve 594 and to left valve 534 and left lung 574) between a simulated trachea (535 - "manikin's airway", fig. 25) and the first simulated lung (See fig. 25; para [0123]-[0125]); and an air trapping module (collectively 536 - "breathing valve", 518 - "pneumatic module", fig. 25; para [0119]) along a second air path (See fig. 25; para [0123]-[0125]; see path between module 518 and left lung 574 that extends between lung 574 and airway 535) between the simulated trachea and the first simulated lung (See fig. 25; para [0123]-[0125]). To the extent EGGERT does not expressly disclose the valve as adjustable, OWENS teaches a system (See fig. 4; col 3, lines 12-45) comprising a simulation module (See fig. 4; col 3, lines 12-45) comprising a first simulated lung (left 16 - "cylinder", fig. 4; col 3, lines 25-34); a second simulated lung (right 16 - "cylinder", fig. 4; col 3, lines 25-34); an adjustable valve (28, 30, 32, 34 - "valves", fig. 4) and an air trapping module (24 - "bellows", fig. 4); the adjustable valve is positioned along a first air path between a simulated trachea (See fig. 4; col 3, lines 46-64 - see how valves connect to pharynx) and the first simulated lung (See fig. 4; see path from valves 32, 34 to left cylinder 16); the air trapping module is positioned along a second air path with the first simulated lung (See fig. 4; see path from bellows 24 to left cylinder 16); wherein the adjustable valve is configured to control an air resistance of the first air path between the simulated trachea and the first simulated lung (col 3, lines 65 - col 4, lines 14; needle valves 32, 34 control flow resistance). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the adjustable valve of OWENS in place of the valve of EGGERT in order to allow for more refined control of the simulation module.
Regarding claim 2, EGGERT further teaches wherein: the air trapping module (collectively 536 - "breathing valve", 518 - "pneumatic module", fig. 25; para [0119]) is configured to move between a first configuration and a second configuration (para [0123]-[0125]); in the first configuration, the air trapping module is configured to allow air flow along the first air path from the simulated trachea to the first simulated lung (para [0123]-[0125] - "second position"; in second position, valve 536 allows flow from airway 535 to lung 574); and in the second configuration, the air trapping module is configured to prevent air flow along the first air path from a cavity of the air trapping module to the simulated trachea (para [0123]-[0125] - "first position"; in first position, valve 536 only allows flow from module 518 to lung 574).
Regarding claim 11, EGGERT teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the adjustable valve is configured to control an air resistance of the first air path between the simulated trachea and the first simulated lung. However, OWENS teaches wherein the adjustable valve is configured to control an air resistance of the first air path between the simulated trachea and the first simulated lung (col 3, line 65 - col 4, line 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the adjustable valve including the ability to control flow resistance of OWENS in place of the valve of EGGERT in order to allow for more refined control of the simulation module.
Regarding claim 12, EGGERT teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the adjustable valve is configured to symmetrically control the air resistance of the first air path between the simulated trachea and the first simulated lung. However, OWENS teaches wherein the adjustable valve is configured to control the air resistance of the first air path between the simulated trachea and the first simulated lung (col 3, line 65 - col 4, line 14; needle valves 32, 34 control flow resistance). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the adjustable valve including the ability to control flow resistance of OWENS in place of the valve of EGGERT in order to allow for more refined control of the simulation module. Further, the decision of whether to control the air path symmetrically or asymmetrically is a binary choice. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention using routine experimentation and design principles to control the air path symmetrically in order to allow for monitoring of normal breathing patterns.
Regarding claim 13, EGGERT teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the adjustable valve is configured to asymmetrically control the air resistance of the first air path between the simulated trachea and the first simulated lung. However, OWENS teaches wherein the adjustable valve is configured to control the air resistance of the first air path between the simulated trachea and the first simulated lung (col 3, line 65 - col 4, line 14; needle valves 32, 34 control flow resistance). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the adjustable valve including the ability to control flow resistance of OWENS in place of the valve of EGGERT in order to allow for more refined control of the simulation module. Further, the decision of whether to control the air path symmetrically or asymmetrically is a binary choice. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention using routine experimentation and design principles to control the air path asymmetrically in order to allow for monitoring of asthmatic breathing patterns.
Regarding claim 14, EGGERT further teaches wherein the asthma simulation module further comprises a second simulated lung (right 574 - "lung", figs. 24-25); but does not expressly disclose wherein: the adjustable valve is positioned along a third air path between the simulated trachea and the second simulated lung; and the air trapping module is positioned along a fourth air path between the simulated trachea and the first simulated lung. However, OWENS teaches a system (See fig. 4; col 3, lines 12-45) comprising a simulation module (See fig. 4; col 3, lines 12-45) comprising a first simulated lung (left 16 - "cylinder'', fig. 4; col 3, lines 25-34); a second simulated lung (right 16 - "cylinder", fig. 4; col 3, lines 25-34); an adjustable valve (28, 30, 32, 34 - "valves", fig. 4) and an air trapping module (24 - "bellows", fig. 4); the adjustable valve is positioned along a first air path between a simulated trachea (See fig. 4; col 3, lines 46-64 - see how valves connect to pharynx) and the first simulated lung (See fig. 4; see path from valves 32, 34 to left cylinder 16); the air trapping module is positioned along a second air path with the first simulated lung (See fig. 4; see path from bellows 24 to left cylinder 16); the adjustable valve is positioned along a third air path between the simulated trachea and the second simulated lung (See fig. 4; see path from valves 32, 34 to right cylinder 16); and the air trapping module Is positioned along a fourth air path with the second simulated lung (See fig. 4; see path from bellows 24 to right cylinder 16). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use separate air paths for each simulated lung of EGGERT as taught by OWENS in order to allow for customized control of the patient simulator.
Regarding claim 16, EGGERT further teaches wherein the simulated body portion includes a simulated torso (See figs. 24-25; para [0108]).
Regarding claim 17, EGGERT further teaches wherein the asthma simulation module is positioned within the simulated torso (See figs. 24-25; para [0108]; internal organs (such as lungs 574) are within torso).
Regarding claim 18, EGGERT further teaches wherein the simulated body portion includes a simulated neck coupled to the simulated torso, wherein the simulated trachea is positioned within the simulated neck (See figs. 24-25; para [0108]; form of adult human includes a trachea/airway 535 in the neck).
Regarding claim 19, EGGERT teaches a method (500 - "portable care simulator system", figs. 24-26; para [0108], [0119]), comprising: providing a patient simulator having a simulated body portion (See fig. 24; para [0108]; simulator system 500 comprises a fully articulating manikin) and an asthma simulation module (See figs. 25-26; para [0119], [01261]) positioned within the simulated body portion (See figs. 24 -25; para [0108]), the asthma simulation module including a first simulated lung (left 574 - "lung", figs. 24-25), a valve (94 - "check valve", fig. 25; para [0123]-[0125]; valve 594 is adjustable via flow of air from 535 when breathing valve 536 moves from first position to second position, allowing air to now flow from airway 535, through valve 594 to lungs 574) along a first air path (See fig. 25; see path from airway 535, through valve 594 and to left valve 534 and left lung 574) between a simulated trachea (See fig. 25; see path from airway 535, through valve 594 and to left valve 534 and left lung 574) and the first simulated lung (See fig. 25; para [0123]-[0125]); and an air trapping module (collectively 536 - "breathing valve", 518 - "pneumatic module", fig. 25; para [0119]) along a second air path (See fig. 25; para [0123]-[0125]; see path between module 518 and left lung 574 that extends between lung 574 and airway 535) between the simulated trachea and the first simulated lung (See fig. 25; para [0123]-[0125]); and simulating an asthmatic breathing pattern using the asthma simulation module of the patient simulator (para [0126]). To the extent EGGERT does not expressly disclose the valve as adjustable, OWENS teaches a system (See fig. 4; col 3, lines 12-45) comprising a simulation module (See fig. 4; col 3, lines 12-45) comprising a first simulated lung (left 16 - "cylinder", fig. 4; col 3, lines 25-34); a second simulated lung (right 16 - "cylinder", fig. 4; col 3, lines 25-34); an adjustable valve (28, 30, 32, 34 - "valves", fig. 4) and an air trapping module (24 - "bellows", fig. 4); the adjustable valve is positioned along a first air path between a simulated trachea (See fig. 4; col 3, lines 46-64 - see how valves connect to pharynx) and the first simulated lung (See fig. 4; see path from valves 32, 34 to left cylinder 16); the air trapping module is positioned along a second air path with the first simulated lung (See fig. 4; see path from bellows 24 to left cylinder 16); wherein the adjustable valve is configured to control an air resistance of the first air path between the simulated trachea and the first simulated lung (col 3, lines 65 - col 4, lines 14; needle valves 32, 34 control flow resistance). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the adjustable valve of OWENS in place of the valve of EGGERT in order to allow for more refined control of the simulation module.
Regarding claim 20, EGGERT further teaches wherein the simulating the asthmatic breathing pattern comprises: causing air to travel between the trachea and the first simulated lung along the second air path during inspiration (para [0125]); and causing air to travel between the first simulated lung and the trachea along the first air path during expiration (para [0123]-[0125]).
Regarding claim 26, EGGERT further teaches wherein the simulating the asthmatic breathing pattern comprises: moving the air trapping module (collectively 536 - "breathing valve", 518 - "pneumatic module", fig. 25; para [0119]) between a first configuration and a second configuration (para [0123]-[0125]), wherein, in the first configuration, the air trapping module allows air flow along the first air path from the simulated trachea to the first simulated lung (para [0123]-[0125] - "second position"; In second position, valve 536 allows flow from airway 535 to lung 574); and wherein, in the second configuration, the air trapping module prevents air flow along the first air path from a cavity of the air trapping module to the simulated trachea (para [0123]-[0125] - "first position"; in first position, valve 536 only allows flow from module 518 to lung 574).
Regarding claim 29, EGGERT teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose controlling an air resistance of the first air path between the simulated trachea and the first simulated lung using the adjustable valve. However, OWENS teaches wherein the adjustable valve is configured to control an air resistance of the first air path between the simulated trachea and the first simulated lung (col 3, line 65 - col 4, line 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the adjustable valve including the ability to control flow resistance of OWENS in place of the valve of EGGERT in order to allow for more refined control of the simulation module.
Regarding claim 30, EGGERT teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the controlling the air resistance of the first air path between the simulated trachea and the first simulated lung using the adjustable valve comprises providing a symmetrical air resistance between inspiration and expiration. However, OWENS teaches wherein the adjustable valve is configured to control the air resistance of the first air path between the simulated trachea and the first simulated lung (col 3, line 65 - col 4, line 14; needle valves 32, 34 control flow resistance). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the adjustable valve including the ability to control flow resistance of OWENS in place of the valve of EGGERT in order to allow for more refined control of the simulation module. Further, the decision of whether to control the air path symmetrically or asymmetrically is a binary choice. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention using routine experimentation and design principles to control the air path symmetrically in order to allow for monitoring of normal breathing patterns.
Regarding claim 31, EGGERT teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the controlling the air resistance of the first air path between the simulated trachea and the first simulated lung using the adjustable valve comprises providing an asymmetrical air resistance between inspiration and expiration. However, OWENS teaches wherein the adjustable valve is configured to control the air resistance of the first air path between the simulated trachea and the first simulated lung (col 3, line 65 - col 4, line 14; needle valves 32, 34 control flow resistance). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the adjustable valve including the ability to control flow resistance of OWENS in place of the valve of EGGERT in order to allow for more refined control of the simulation module. Further, the decision of whether to control the air path symmetrically or asymmetrically is a binary choice. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention using routine experimentation and design principles to control the air path asymmetrically in order to allow for monitoring of asthmatic breathing patterns.
Regarding claim 32, EGGERT further teaches wherein: the asthma simulation module further comprises a second simulated lung (right 574 - "lung", figs. 24-25); and the simulating the asthmatic breathing pattern using the asthma simulation module of the patient simulator comprises simulating the asthmatic breathing pattern with at least one of the first simulated lung or the second simulated lung (See figs. 24-25; para [0123]-[0126]).
Regarding claim 33, EGGERT further teaches wherein the simulating the asthmatic breathing pattern using the asthma simulation module of the patient simulator comprises simulating the asthmatic breathing pattern with both of the first simulated lung and the second simulated lung (See figs. 24-25; para [0123]-[0126]).
Regarding claim 34, EGGERT teaches the elements above and additionally wherein the simulating the asthmatic breathing pattern using the asthma simulation module of the patient simulator comprises simulating the asthmatic breathing pattern with both of the first simulated lung and the second simulated lung (See figs. 24-25; para [0123]-[0126]), but does not expressly disclose wherein the simulating the asthmatic breathing pattern with both of the first simulated lung and the second simulated lung comprises simulating the asthmatic breathing pattern by independently controlling one or more parameters of the asthmatic breathing pattern for each of the first simulated lung and the second simulated lung. However, the decision of whether to control the simulated lungs independently or jointly is a binary choice. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention using routine experimentation and design principles to control the simulated lungs independently in order to allow for more unique breathing patterns.
Regarding claim 35, EGGERT teaches the elements above and additionally wherein the simulating the asthmatic breathing pattern using the asthma simulation module of the patient simulator comprises simulating the asthmatic breathing pattern with both of the first simulated lung and the second simulated lung (See figs. 24-25; para [0123]-[0126]), but does not expressly disclose wherein the simulating the asthmatic breathing pattern with both of the first simulated lung and the second simulated lung comprises simulating the asthmatic breathing pattern by jointly controlling one or more parameters of the asthmatic breathing pattern for both of the first simulated lung and the second simulated lung. However, the decision of whether to control the simulated lungs independently or jointly Is a binary choice. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention using routine experimentation and design principles to control the simulated lungs jointly in order to ensure each lung is in sync with one another.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over EGGERT in view of US OWENS, as applied to claim 1, in view of US 2008/0305464 A1 to LYNN.
Regarding claim 15, EGGERT teaches the elements above and additionally the system comprising a second simulated lung (right 574 - "lung", figs. 24-25), but does not expressly disclose a second asthma simulation module positioned within the simulated body portion, the second asthma simulation module including: a second simulated lung; a second adjustable valve along a third air path between the simulated trachea and the second simulated lung; and a second air trapping module along a fourth air path between the simulated trachea and the second simulated lung. However, LYNN teaches a system (See figs. 10-11; para [0040]) comprising a patient simulator having a simulated body portion (See fig. 1; see manikin 226); a first asthma simulation module (See fig. 11; see components left of trachea 228) positioned within the simulated body portion (See figs. 10-11 ); a second asthma simulation module (See fig. 11; see components right of trachea 228) positioned within the simulated body portion (See figs. 10-11); each asthma simulation module comprising a simulated lung (272, 273 - "lungs", fig. 11); and a valve (4 70 - "valve", fig. 11 ). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a second asthma simulation module as taught by LYNN in the system of EGGERT, each having a simulated lung, an adjustable valve and an air trapping module, in order to allow for customized control of the patient simulator.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over EGGERT in view of US OWENS, as applied to claim 19, in view of US 2016/0055768 A1 to RODRIGUEZ.
Regarding claim 36, EGGERT teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose coupling an external ventilator to the patient simulator, the external ventilator configured to detect the asthmatic breathing pattern. However, RODRIGUEZ teaches a system (See fig. 14; para [0072]) comprising a patient simulator module (See fig. 14); a simulation module (See fig. 14); the system comprising coupling an external ventilator (420 - "external ventilator", fig. 14; para [0074]) to the patient simulator (See fig. 14), the external ventilator configured to detect an asthmatic breathing pattern (para [0074]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the external ventilator of RODRIGUEZ in the method of EGGERT in order to allow means of quickly identifying the asthmatic breathing pattern.
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art, including EGGERT, OWENS, LYNN, and RODRIGUEZ, as cited above, do not anticipate or render obvious the limitations of dependent claims 3-10, 21-25, and 27-28. Therefore, claims 3-10, 21-25, and 27-28 are 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.
The closest prior art includes EGGERT and OWENS. EGGERT teaches a system (500- "portable care simulator system", figs. 24-26; para [0108], [01191]), comprising: a patient simulator having a simulated body portion (See fig. 24; para [0108]; simulator system 500 comprises a fully articulating manikin); and an asthma simulation module (See figs. 25-26; para [0119], [0126]) positioned within the simulated body portion (See figs. 24-25; para [0108]), the asthma simulation module including: a first simulated lung (left 574 - "lung", figs. 24-25); a valve (594 - "check valve", fig. 25; para [0123]-[0125]; valve 594 is adjustable via flow of air from 535 when breathing valve 536 moves from first position to second position, allowing air to now flow from airway 535, through valve 594 to lungs 574) along a first air path (See fig. 25; see path from airway 535, through valve 594 and to left valve 534 and left lung 574) between a simulated trachea (535 - "manikin's airway", fig. 25) and the first simulated lung (See fig. 25; para [0123]-[0125]); and an air trapping module (collectively 536 - "breathing valve", 518 - "pneumatic module", fig. 25; para [0119]) along a second air path (See fig. 25; para [0123]-[0125]; see path between module 518 and left lung 574 that extends between lung 574 and airway 535) between the simulated trachea and the first simulated lung (See fig. 25; para [0123]-[0125]). OWENS teaches a system (See fig. 4; col 3, lines 12-45) comprising a simulation module (See fig. 4; col 3, lines 12-45) comprising a first simulated lung (left 16 - "cylinder", fig. 4; col 3, lines 25-34); a second simulated lung (right 16 - "cylinder", fig. 4; col 3, lines 25-34); an adjustable valve (28, 30, 32, 34 - "valves", fig. 4) and an air trapping module (24 - "bellows", fig. 4); the adjustable valve is positioned along a first air path between a simulated trachea (See fig. 4; col 3, lines 46-64 - see how valves connect to pharynx) and the first simulated lung (See fig. 4; see path from valves 32, 34 to left cylinder 16); the air trapping module is positioned.
However, EGGERT and OWENS, individually or in combination do not specifically teach or fairly suggest individually or in combination: wherein: in the first configuration, the air trapping module is configured to prevent air flow along the first air path from the cavity of the air trapping module to the simulated trachea; and in the second configuration, the air trapping module is configured to prevent air flow along the first air path from the simulated trachea to the first simulated lung, as recited in claim 3. Regarding Claims 4-10, the prior art does not specifically teach or fairly suggest individually or in combination the systems as claimed since they are dependent on Claim 3.
EGGERT and OWENS, individually or in combination do not specifically teach or fairly suggest individually or in combination: wherein an air resistance along the first air path during expiration Is greater than an air resistance along the second air path during inspiration, as recited in claim 21.
EGGERT and OWENS, individually or in combination do not specifically teach or fairly suggest individually or in combination: wherein the causing the air to travel between the first simulated lung and the trachea along the first air path during expiration comprises trapping air within a cavity of the air trapping module, as recited in claim 22. Regarding Claims 23-25, the prior art does not specifically teach or fairly suggest individually or in combination the methods as claimed since they are dependent on Claim 22.
EGGERT and OWENS, individually or in combination do not specifically teach or fairly suggest individually or in combination: wherein the moving the air trapping module between the first configuration and the second configuration comprises: selectively inflating and deflating a bellow between a deflated position associated with the first configuration and an inflated position associated with the second configuration, as recited in claim 27. Regarding Claim 28, the prior art does not specifically teach or fairly suggest individually or in combination the method as claimed since It is dependent on Claim 27.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Hull whose telephone number is 571-272-0996. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai, can be reached at telephone number 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.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES B HULL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715