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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 12-13, 15-16, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by PGPUB US 20230245591 A1 by Ozaki et al (“Ozaki”).
In regard to Claim 1, Ozaki teaches a catheter simulator comprising:
a container capable of accommodating a liquid in an accommodation part surrounded by side walls and a bottom part;
(see, e.g., F1, 18);
a cerebral blood vessel model held in the container in a state of accommodating a liquid;
(see, e.g., F1, 38);
a pump connected to the container and circulating the liquid inside the cerebral blood vessel model held therein; and
(see, e.g., F1, 20);
a holder provided on the side walls of the container and the cerebral blood vessel model and holding the cerebral blood vessel model in a state of having the container filled with the liquid,
wherein the holder includes a first holding part holding an end of an ascending aorta of the cerebral blood vessel model, and a second holding part holding an end of a descending aorta of the cerebral blood vessel model,
(see, e.g., F2, 30b and F2, 30e);
the first holding part includes a liquid introduction port for introducing a liquid into the cerebral blood vessel model in the state of being held,
(see, e.g., F2 30b);
the second holding part includes a catheter introduction port for introducing a catheter into the cerebral blood vessel model in the state of being held, and
(see, e.g., F7, 98);
an opening part for controlling the balance of the liquid circulating inside the cerebral blood vessel model by discharging the liquid to be introduced by the pump, is formed on an outer shell constituting the cerebral blood vessel model
(see, e.g., F7, 72C and p51).
In regard to Claims 3-4, Ozaki teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F7, 72C and p51.
In regard to Claims 5-6, Ozaki teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F1.
In regard to Claim 12, Ozaki teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F2, 88a and 88b.
In regard to Claim 13, Ozaki teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F7, 30a.
In regard to Claim 15, Ozaki teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F2, 42b.
In regard to Claim 16, Ozaki teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F2, 42b.
In regard to Claim 20, Ozaki teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F1, 30b.
In regard to Claim 21, Ozaki teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F7.
In regard to Claims 22-24, Ozaki teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F7, 72c.
In regard to Claim 25, Ozaki teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F2, 42c, 54, 42e, 72a, and/or 72b.
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 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki, in view of PGPUB US 20190244544 A1 by Okayama et al (“Okayama”).
In regard to Claims 7-9, Okayama teaches employing a holder connected to a subclavian artery portion of an organ model that includes a catheter introduction port (see, e.g., F1, 52 and p29);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added subclavian arteries with catheter introduction ports as taught by Okayama to the apparatus otherwise taught by Ozaki, in order to increase the realism of the simulation.
Claims 14 and 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki, in view of Okayama.
In regard to Claim 14, Okayama teaches employing attachable and detachable blood vessels as part of a blood vessel model (see, e.g., p44);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added attachable and detachable blood vessels as taught by Okayama to the apparatus otherwise taught by Ozaki, in order to increase the realism of the simulation.
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki, in view of PATENT US 6062866 A to Prom (“Prom”).
In regard to Claim 14, Okayama teaches a model with additional blood vessels that are joined together with a circular/curved structure that includes an outlet port (see, e.g., F1, 95 where two artery groups are joined together with a central structure that includes an outlet port);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added additional blood vessels joined by a central structure as taught by Prom to the apparatus otherwise taught by Ozaki, in order to increase the realism of the simulation.
Furthermore, to the extent to which the cited prior art may fail to specifically teach the joining pieces having a “thin plate shape” such a shape is merely design choice as what is taught by the prior art likewise fulfills the same goal. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 10-11, and 17-19 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO-Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights