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 .
Applicant’s amendments dated 7/28/26 are hereby entered.
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 22-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PATENT US 6062866 A to Prom (“Prom”), in view of PGPUB US 20230245591 A1 by Ozaki (“Ozaki”).
In regard to Claims 22-24, Prom teaches a cerebral blood vessel model […] accommodating a liquid and used when catheter maneuvers are practiced in a state of circulating a liquid therein,
(see, e.g., F1);
wherein an opening part for controlling the balance of the circulating liquid is formed in an outer shell constituting the cerebral blood vessel model, and
the opening part is provided in a descending aorta of the cerebral blood vessel model
(see, e.g., C4, L1-10, “[p]orts may be provided at various convenient locations in the model”);
Furthermore, to the extent that Prom may fail to specifically teach the model being held in a container, however, in an analogous reference Ozaki teaches that feature (see, e.g., F1, 12);
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 the tank taught by Ozaki to the apparatus otherwise taught by Prom, in order to confine the liquid as it left the model.
In regard to Claim 25, to the extent that Prom may fail to specifically teach the model being held in a container using a hard part that was part of the outer shell, however, in an analogous reference Ozaki teaches that feature (see, e.g., F2, 88a and 88b);
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 the attachment points taught by Ozaki to the apparatus otherwise taught by the prior combination of Prom and Ozaki, in order to limit the motion of the model within the tank during the simulation operation.
In regard to Claims 26-28, Prom 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, 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).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prom, in view of Ozaki, further in view of PGPUB US 20190244544 A1 by Okayama (“Okayama”).
In regard to Claim 29, 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 Prom, in order to increase the realism of the simulation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-9, 12-21, and 30-31 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are addressed by the updated statements of rejection made supra, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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 extension fee 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 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