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 § 112
Claims 1-8, 11-14 and 17 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.
In claim 1, line 5, “the vessel model” lacks proper antecedent basis because a vessel model has not been clearly recited as part of the claimed invention. Rather, the preamble merely recites a vessel holder for connecting thereto a vessel model. Also, in line 7, the term “optionally” renders the claim indefinite, because it is not clear whether the ensuing language is being positively recited as part of the claimed invention.
Claims 3, 4 and 14 also recited “the vessel model” and are also indefinite for the reasons discussed above.
Claims 4, 6-8 and 11 each recite “the holder mount connector”. However, claim 1 recites “optionally at least one holder-mount connector”. The claim terminology “the holder mount connector” lacks proper antecedent basis, both because the antecedent claim language in claim 1 is recited as an optional limitation and because claim 1 recites (optionally) “at least one” holder-mount connector. It is this not clear whether “the holder-mount connector” is intended to refer to one or a plurality of the previously recited “at least one holder-mount connector”.
Claims 5 and 12 each recite “the at least one holder mount connector”. This claim terminology lacks proper antecedent basis because the antecedent claim language in claim 1 is recited as an optional limitation.
Claim 17 recites “the clip” in line 2. This claim terminology lacks proper antecedent basis because claim 17 depends from claim 1 rather than claim 13, which first recites a clip.
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 1-4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okayama (US 2024/0021104). As best shown in Figs. 1, 2 and 4 and in paragraphs [0031-33] and [0040-42], Okayama discloses a vessel holder for holding a vessel model comprising an elongate body 10 having a pair of end walls 13 and 14 and a pair of side walls 11 and 12 defining a chamber. Okayama further discloses a plurality of holder-vessel connectors 21-24, each holder-vessel having an aperture and being configured to attach a vessel model to the vessel holder. While Okayama discloses that its holder-vessel connectors are provided at one end wall and both side walls of the vessel holder, rather than at each end wall, this is considered to amount to an obvious rearrangement of parts under MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Applicant is advised that the holder-mount connector is not explicitly recited as part of the claimed invention, but rather has been recited as “optional”. Amendment of claim 1 to more clearly recite the holder-mount connector would overcome the rejection, as the prior art does not disclose or suggest this feature in conjunction with the other recited limitations.
With respect to claim 2, the side walls of Okayama are disposed longitudinally as recited. With respect to claim 3, Okayama discloses that a diameter of the holder-vessel connector corresponds to a diameter of the vessel model. With respect to claim 4, Okayama further discloses that the holder-vessel connector comprises a female connector configured to receive the vessel model. With respect to claim 20, Okayama discloses or suggests each of the recited method steps, including the step of causing a fluid to flow through the vessel model (see paragraph [0045]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okayama in view of Hutmacher. Okayama discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the provision of a syringe to cause the fluid to flow through the vessel model. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Hutmacher at col. 9, lines 45-50, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okayama in view of Okayama (US 10,360,813). Okayama (US 2024/0021104) discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the step of de-airing the vessel model as recited. This step is known in the art, as taught for example by Okayama (US 10,360,813) at col. 12, lines 4-34, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of reducing/eliminating air bubbles in the vessel model prior to allow the fluid to flow more smoothly therethrough.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 11-14 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 22-24 and 26 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 considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT FERNSTROM whose telephone number is (571)272-4422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, 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 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.
/KURT FERNSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
December 30, 2025