DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response on 3/31/2026 has been received and fully considered. In the response, claims 20 and 21 have been canceled. Therefore, claims 1-19 are pending.
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)(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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0226314 to Li.
With regard to claim 1, Li discloses a method for making a porcine leaf fat membrane comprising (e.g., see at least paragraph 33 that discusses “Fat and extraneous tissue were mechanically removed from the porcine peritoneum was first washed in purified water”, wherein the term “peritoneum” is equivalent to leaf fat membrane): exposing a porcine leaf fat tissue sample to a detergent solution (e.g., see at least paragraph 33 that states “detergent and enzyme extracted porcine peritoneum”), the porcine leaf fat tissue sample comprising a porcine leaf fat membrane and porcine leaf fat connected thereto (e.g., see at least paragraph 33 that discusses “fat” and “porcine peritoneum”); and mechanically stripping the porcine leaf fat from the porcine leaf fat membrane after exposing the porcine leaf fat tissue sample to the detergent solution (e.g., see at least paragraph 33 that discusses “Fat and extraneous tissue were mechanically removed from the porcine peritoneum was first washed in purified water”);
[claim 2] the detergent solution is at a temperature in a range of 35ºC to 40ºC (e.g., see at least paragraph 33 that states being washed in room temperature, while room temperature may ideally be less than 35 degrees C, some rooms could certainly be 35 degrees C).
[claim 3] wherein the exposing is carried out for a time in a range of 3 to 5 minutes (e.g., see at least paragraph 33 that discusses washing for 2 hours, which includes a time rang of 3 to 5 minutes because the claim does not specify that it must end at 5 minutes);
[claim 4] wherein mechanically stripping comprises mechanically stripping to form a base porcine leaf fat membrane layer and a plurality of porcine leaf fat membrane projections extending therefrom (e.g., see at Applicant’s admission at Fig. 10 and paragraph 50 that porcine leaf flat membranes include “projections”; since Li discloses a porcine peritoneum, then it inherently includes the recited projections because Applicant’s samples all included projections);
[claim 5] wherein the plurality of leaf fat membrane projections comprise at least 2 projections per square inch and having a length of at least 0.5 inches (e.g., see Applicant’s admission in Fig. 10 and paragraph of the current application that shows numerous samples that include at least 2 projections per square inch and a projection length of at least 0.5 inches. For example, Sample 3 shows all measured projections greater than 2 per square inch and all measured projections greater than 0.5 inches in length. According to Applicant’s admission in Fig. 10, the average number of projections per square inch in all the samples is 2.7 and the average projection length is 0.94 inches, since Li discloses a porcine peritoneum, then it inherently includes the recited projections because Applicant’s samples all included projections consistent with the sampled density and length);
[claim 6] wherein mechanically stripping comprises mechanically scraping with an edged tool (e.g., see at least paragraph 33 that discusses “Fat and extraneous tissue were mechanically removed from the porcine peritoneum).
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 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,145,452 to Chevalier.
With regard to claim 6 (if it is held that Li fails to disclose “an edge tool”) and claim 7, Li fails to expressly disclose an edge tool with fluid assist. As noted above, Li discloses mechanically removing fat (e.g. see at least paragraph 33).
Reasonably pertinent to the problem faced, Chevalier teaches removing anatomical matter from an animal with an edge tool having fluid assist (e.g., see at least column 3, lines 22-32 for discussion of a scraping edge 42; see also paragraph bridging columns 3 and 4 for discussion of fluid assist, water hose 200 “to introduce a stream of water to the scraping head member (40)”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Li with a tool with an edge and fluid assist as taught by Chevalier in order to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. In this case, Chevalier notes at top of column 4, that the scraping tool with water assist is meant to remove the debris from the animal cavity.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0295384 to Yamago.
With regard to claims 8 and 9, Li discloses all of the recited features but is silent regarding sealing the sample in a resealable bag with the detergent solution.
Reasonably pertinent to the problem faced, Yamago teaches placing a sample in a sealed bag immersed in detergent solution (e.g., see at least paragraph 214 that discusses immersing samples in a detergent solution in a sealed plastic bag).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Li with sealed plastic bag as taught by Yamago in order to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. In this case, Yamago’s sealed plastic bag serves to only immerse the sample in the solution without exposing other items to the solution to keep the working environment clean.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0040030 to Wang.
With regard to claim 10, Li discloses all of the recited features but is silent regarding using an aqueous solution that includes an anionic or cationic surfactant.
Reasonably pertinent to the problem faced, Wang teaches using an aqueous solution that includes an anionic or cationic surfactant on an animal anatomical sample (e.g., see at least paragraphs 18, 21, 53, and 57 that discuss using an aqueous solution that includes an anionic surfactant).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Li with an anionic surfactant as taught by Wang in order to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. In this case, Wang’s anionic surfactant lower surface tension to help with cleaning and removing of unwanted materials from a surface.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0286406 to Alexander.
With regard to claims 11 and 12, Li discloses all of the recited features but is silent regarding using porcine leaf fat membrane in a surgical simulator.
Reasonably pertinent to the problem faced, Alexander teaches using a porcine leaf fat membrane in a surgical simulator (e.g., see at least paragraph 58 that discuss porcine peritoneum in a surgical simulation for hernia).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Li with use of tissue in a surgical simulator as taught by Alexander in order to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In this case, Alexander’s use of porcine tissue in a surgical simulation provides medical practitioners with a sample that is similar to human tissue for increased training opportunities.
With regard to claims 13-17, Li discloses the recited features as set forth above for claims 2-6, which are similar in claims scope.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Alexander for claim 11 and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 5,145,452 to Chevalier.
With regard to claim 17 (if it is held that Li fails to disclose “an edge tool) and claim 18, Li fails to expressly disclose an edge tool with fluid assist. As noted above, Li discloses mechanically removing fat (e.g. see at least paragraph 33).
Reasonably pertinent to the problem faced, Chevalier teaches removing anatomical matter from an animal with an edge tool having fluid assist (e.g., see at least column 3, lines 22-32 for discussion of a scraping edge 42; see also paragraph bridging columns 3 and 4 for discussion of fluid assist, water hose 200 “to introduce a stream of water to the scraping head member (40)”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Li with a tool with an edge and fluid assist as taught by Chevalier in order to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. In this case, Chevalier notes at top of column 4, that the scraping tool with water assist is meant to remove the debris from the animal cavity.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Alexander for claim 11 and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0040030 to Wang.
With regard to claim 19, Li discloses all of the recited features but is silent regarding using an aqueous solution that includes an anionic or cationic surfactant.
Reasonably pertinent to the problem faced, Wang teaches using an aqueous solution that includes an anionic or cationic surfactant on an animal anatomical sample (e.g., see at least paragraphs 18, 21, 53, and 57 that discuss using an aqueous solution that includes an anionic surfactant).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Li with an anionic surfactant as taught by Wang in order to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. In this case, Wang’s anionic surfactant lower surface tension to help with cleaning and removing of unwanted materials from a surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6, first paragraph, Applicant notes that claims 20 and 21 were canceled. Therefore, the 101 rejections are withdrawn.
On page 8, first full paragraph, Applicant alleges that “the Examiner has mischaracterized the teachings of Li”. Continuing on page 9, first full paragraph, Applicant further asserts that Li discloses mechanically stripping the porcine leaf fat before exposing the sample to detergent. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In paragraph 33, Li discloses “The pre-cleaned porcine peritoneum was first washed in purified water at room temperature”. The Examiner is unaware of any recitation in Li that expressly states that the cleaning is after mechanical stripping. In contrast, Li states in paragraph 33 that the sample was “pre-cleaned” and “first washed”. Li does not appear to disclose that the “pre-cleaned” and “first washed” recitations refer to a period of time after the mechanically stripping. “Pre” typically means before other actions, not after other actions. And “first” means first, not second or later. Based on the totality of Li’s disclosure, the Examiner asserts that the tissue sample was “pre-cleaned” and “first washed” before other actions, including mechanical stripping.
For at least this reason, the prior art rejections are maintained.
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 JAMES S MCCLELLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30AM-5:00PM).
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/James S. McClellan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights