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 § 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 1, 13, 16, 17 and 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owens in view of Forbes. As best shown in Figures 1, 4 and 5, Owens discloses a patient simulator comprising one or more simulated limbs (arms 16 and legs 20) and a simulated torso comprising an upper torso bracket 26 and a lower torso bracket 28 pivotally connected by an articulation joint (see col. 5, lines 48-65). The simulated limbs are connected to the upper torso bracket or the lower torso bracket. Owens further discloses additional articulation joints 42 in the arms and legs, as shown for example in Fig. 1. Owens does not disclose the provision of arm or leg actuators and associated actuation lines as recited. Forbes discloses at col. 2, lines 63-67, col. 5, lines 4-13 and col. 5, line 40 to col. 6, line 5 an articulated anatomical simulator comprising actuators provided on the simulator. While in the primary embodiment the actuator is incorporated in the lumbar spine unit, Forbes discloses at col. 2, lines 66-67 that “other positions, e.g. neck region or legs could also be provided with an actuator.” Forbes further discloses cables 13 at col. 5, lines 4-13 and col. 5, line 40 to col. 6, line 5, where said cables are configured as actuation lines as recited. Forbes additionally shows an embodiment in Fig 9 where actuation elements are connected to the simulator at the lower torso bracket and the associated leg portion, which actuation lines disposed along the legs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the teachings of Owens by providing actuators and associated actuation lines to the legs for the purpose of providing controlled movement to the patient simulator to simulate movement of the legs.
With respect to claims 13, 16 and 17, Owens discloses a head indirectly and pivotally connected to the upper torso bracket via an articulation joint connection to a neck element (see col. 6, lines 9-15). With respect to claims 20 and 26, the recitation in Forbes that “other positions, e.g. neck region or legs could also be provided with an actuator” suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art that the arms could also be provided with similar actuators and actuating lines. With respect to claims 21, 24 and 27, Forbes discloses at col. 5, line 40 to col. 6, line 5 that “[p]assive pulling elements 13 run from the trunk body element to the leg body element. The passive pulling elements 13 are connected to actuators 1 that are placed outside the dummy and therefore not shown here. By controlling the actuator 1, the tension on the cables 13 is changed, which changes the deformation stiffness of the dummy.” This change in tension in the cables selective pivoting and relaxation of the leg portions as recited. Again, corresponding features in the arm portions would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the ““other positions, e.g. neck region or legs could also be provided with an actuator” disclosure of Forbes. With respect to claims 22, 25 and 28, the actuator elements of Forbes are disclosed at col. 3, lines 1-5 as comprising motors. With respect to claim 23, Forbes suggests the recited leg actuators and actuation lines as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owens in view of Forbes, and further in view of Payne. Owens as viewed in combination with Forbes discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the articulation joint comprising ball and clamp elements as recited. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Payne at Fig. 4 and col. 3, lines 31-46, 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 and for the purpose of providing a wide freedom of movement to the joint. With respect to claim 5, Payne further discloses a clamp screw 54 adapted to adjust a clamping force exerted on the ball by the clamp.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It remains the examiner’s position that Forbes suggests the pertinent claim limitations, for reasons discussed more fully above.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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
February 24, 2026