DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 1/16/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because this reference has not been translated. 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
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.
Claims 1-20 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. The claims recite “higher” and “hardness” and it is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. The originally filed specification does not state in what value, relative to what and/or what makes it higher or characterizes the hardness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 & 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ferren et al. (U.S. Publication Number 2012/0035434).
Referring to claim 1, Ferren et al. discloses comprising: a first tube body (514); and a second tube body that covers an inner peripheral surface of the first tube body (512), wherein the first tube body has an acoustic impedance that is higher than an acoustic impedance of the second tube body (paragraphs 0127, 0203, 0218, 0268 & 0283).
Referring to claim 2, Ferren et al. discloses wherein each of the first tube body and the second tube body comprises: a polymer material (paragraph 0129), and fine particles having an acoustic impedance that is higher than an acoustic impedance of the polymer material, and a fine particle concentration in the first tube body is higher than a fine particle concentration in the second tube body (paragraph 0132).
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-11, 13 & 14, 16, 17 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Panasonic Corp (JP 2010-017324 A).
Referring to claim 1, Panasonic Corp discloses comprising: a first tube body (tube part 5); and a second tube body that covers an inner peripheral surface of the first tube body (pulse body 2), wherein the first tube body has an acoustic impedance that is higher than an acoustic impedance of the second tube body (paragraphs 0010, 0012, 0024).
Referring to claim 2, Panasonic Corp discloses wherein each of the first tube body and the second tube body comprises: a polymer material (paragraph 019), and fine particles having an acoustic impedance that is higher than an acoustic impedance of the polymer material, and a fine particle concentration in the first tube body is higher than a fine particle concentration in the second tube body (paragraph 0132).
Referring to claim 3, Panasonic Corp discloses wherein: each of the first tube body and the second tube body comprises: a polymer material (paragraph 0019), and fine particles having an acoustic impedance higher than an acoustic impedance of the polymer material, a type of the fine particles contained in the first tube body differs from a type of the fine particles contained in the second tube body (paragraphs 0010, 0012, 0024); and the fine particles contained in the first tube body have a hardness that is higher than a hardness of the fine particles contained in the second tube body (paragraph 0003).
Referring to claim 4, Panasonic Corp discloses wherein particle diameters of the fine particles contained in the first tube body and particle diameters of the fine particles contained in the second tube body are within a range of 0.1 um or larger and 500 um or smaller (paragraph 0023). Note: this does not necessarily have to be the case because the originally filed specification states it “can be” in that range. As “can be” is not definite. It allows the claim information to be optional).
Referring to claim 5, Panasonic Corp discloses wherein: each of the first tube body and the second tube body is made of a polymer material, and the polymer material constituting the first tube body has an acoustic impedance that is higher than an acoustic impedance of the polymer material constituting the second tube body (paragraphs 0019 & 0132).
Referring to claim 6, Panasonic Corp discloses wherein each of the first tube body and the second tube body is made of a polymer material, and the first tube body has a hardness that is higher than a hardness of the second tube body (paragraphs 0003 & 0019).
Referring to claim 8, Panasonic Corp discloses wherein: a type of the fine particles contained in the first tube body differs from a type of the fine particles contained in the second tube body, and the fine particles contained in the first tube body have a hardness that is higher than a hardness of the fine particles contained in the second tube body (paragraph 0003).
Referring to claim 9, Panasonic Corp discloses wherein particle diameters of the fine particles contained in the first tube body and particle diameters of the fine particles contained in the second tube body are within a range of 0.1 um or larger and 500 um or smaller (paragraph 0023). Note: this does not necessarily have to be the case because the originally filed specification states it “can be” in that range. As “can be” is not definite. It allows the claim information to be optional)..
Referring to claims 10 & 16, Panasonic Corp discloses wherein the polymer material constituting the first tube body has an acoustic impedance that is higher than an acoustic impedance of the polymer material constituting the second tube body (paragraphs 0003 & 0019).
Referring to claims 11 & 14 & 17 & 19, Panasonic Corp discloses wherein the first tube body has a hardness that is higher than a hardness of the second tube body (paragraphs 0010, 0012, 0024).
Referring to claims 13, Panasonic Corp discloses wherein the polymer material constituting the first tube body has an acoustic impedance that is higher than an acoustic impedance of the polymer material constituting the second tube body (paragraphs 0010, 0012, 0019 & 0024).
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.
Claim(s) 7, 12, 15, 18 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panasonic Corp in view of Jms Co. Ltd (JP 2017-053897 A).
Referring to claims 7, 12, 15 & 18, Panasonic Corp discloses the vascular model according to claims 1 & 2. Panasonic Corp does not disclose further comprising: a third tube body that covers an inner peripheral surface of the second tube body, wherein the third tube body has an acoustic impedance that is lower than or equal to the acoustic impedance of the first tube body and higher than the acoustic impedance of the second tube body. However, Jms Co. Ltd teaches further comprising: a third tube body that covers an inner peripheral surface of the second tube body, wherein the third tube body has an acoustic impedance that is lower than or equal to the acoustic impedance of the first tube body and higher than the acoustic impedance of the second tube body (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include further comprising: a third tube body that covers an inner peripheral surface of the second tube body, wherein the third tube body has an acoustic impedance that is lower than or equal to the acoustic impedance of the first tube body and higher than the acoustic impedance of the second tube body, as disclosed by Jms Co. Ltd, incorporated into Panasonic Corp in order to simulate blood vessels moving throughout multiple layers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KESHA FRISBY whose telephone number is (571)272-8774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 730AM-4PM.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 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.
/KESHA FRISBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715