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)(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 12-13 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20140322688).
Regarding claim 12, Park teaches a pulse wave reproduction device, which measures a blood pressure wave by maintaining a pressure of an aorta to be identical to that in an environment of a human body, the pulse wave reproduction device comprising: an aorta part (Fig.1, 16+19+21) provided in the form of a tube elongated to correspond to a shape of a human aorta and configured such that a circulation fluid flows in the aorta part (Paragraphs 42-48); a heart part (Fig.1, 14) connected to the aorta part and configured to share the circulation fluid with the aorta part and generate a forward wave according to a pulse flow by applying a pressure in a preset cycle (Paragraphs 42-48); a vein part (Fig.1, 17+20) configured to share the circulation fluid with the aorta part (Paragraphs 42-46) and adjust a pressure in the aorta part by applying a pressure to the circulation fluid (Paragraphs 42-46, “the liquid volume and pneumatic pressure within the tank 20 are adjusted such that the fluid flowing through the great vein tube 17 will assume the state of the flow immediately after having converged on the great vein from various veins in the body”); and a pressure environment creation part (Fig.1, 22, “a pinchcock-like device”) having a space therein to accommodate the aorta part (Fig.1, tube 21 is a part of the aorta part) and configured to adjust an external pressure by pressing the aorta part (Paragraphs 42-47).
Regarding claim 13, Park teaches wherein internal and external pressures of the aorta part are adjusted to reproduce a condition of the human aorta (Paragraphs 42-48).
Regarding claim 21, Park teaches wherein the heart part comprises: a pump member (Fig.1, 14) configured to provide a pulse flow to the aorta part through the circulation fluid (Paragraphs 42-48); and valve members provided between the pump member and the aorta part, between the pump member and the vein part, and between the vein part and the aorta part and configured to allow the pulse flow to be provided only in one direction from the pump member toward the aorta part (Paragraphs 42-48).
Regarding claim 22, Park teaches a method of operating the pulse wave reproduction device of claims 12 (Claims 11-15).
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20140322688).
Regarding claim 18, Park teaches all the features of claim 12 as outlined above, Park is silent about wherein the pressure environment creation part is provided as a plurality of pressure environment creation parts coupled to one another in accordance with a length of the aorta part and formed in different shapes while corresponding to a shape of the aorta part.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a plurality of pressure environment creation parts, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the pressure environment creations parts to have different shapes, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17 and 19-20 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The primary reasons for allowance of dependent claim 14 is the inclusion of the specific limitations of “wherein the aorta part uses at least one pump to adjust the internal and external pressures.”, in combination of with all other recited (method steps/associated elements) in a pulse wave reproduction device.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIN Y ZHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3798. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/XIN Y ZHONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights