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 .
Application Status
Present office action is in response to application filed 11/22/2024. Claims 1-27 are currently pending in the application.
Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 6-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MOORE et al. (US 20170076636 A1) (MOORE).
Re claims 1, 6-8 and 10-11:
[Claim 1] MOORE discloses an abdominal surgical simulation model (at least ¶ 11: A surgical simulation device and associated methods are provided for simulating realistic surgery on animal organs, which is particularly useful for simulating human surgeries, such as using robotics) comprising: a bottom tray; animal tissue carried within the bottom tray (at least ¶ 11: The surgical simulation device may comprise a support structure, a tray carried by the support structure, and animal tissue carried by the tray; ¶ 54: a disposable tray 105 (FIG. 11); ¶ 57: the molded tray 105 … is designed to hold animal-derived organs for simulated surgery; ¶ 63: The disposable tray may be pre-loaded with a suitable animal-derived organ …); a convex support layer covering the bottom tray; and a compliant layer carried by the convex support layer to simulate abdominal skin in an insufflated state (at least ¶ 11: The surgical simulation device may comprise a support structure … A simulated human skeleton portion may be carried by the support structure above the animal tissue, and simulated human skin may cover the simulated human skeleton portion).
[Claim 6] MOORE discloses wherein the bottom tray has at least one opening therethrough; and comprising at least one of a fluid line and electrical line extending therethrough (at least ¶ 64: … Both the tray 105 and the support base 101 may also contain one or more graduated troughs for housing tube and hoses, channels for housing additional tubes and drainage channels with apertures …; ¶ 74: fluid may… be drained from the tray 105 or the support base 101 through a drainage aperture …).
[Claims 7-8] MOORE discloses wherein the animal tissue comprises harvested animal tissue (at least ¶ 75: … The organ blocks may be harvested from animals butchered for food), wherein the harvested animal tissue comprises harvested porcine tissue (at least ¶ 63: … The disposable tray may be pre-loaded with a suitable animal-derived organ, such as a porcine heart; ¶ 66: … the tray 105 has an indentation 105a, which is designed for use with porcine organs).
[Claim 10] MOORE discloses a base coupled to the animal tissue defining a tissue cassette; and wherein the tissue cassette is removably positioned within the bottom tray (at least ¶ 57: the molded tray 105 … is designed to hold animal-derived organs for simulated surgery … The tray 105 and organs are sealed into a bag, which together form a “cassette.” … The loaded and sealed tray may be referred to as a “cassette” …; ¶ 63: If surgery needs to be restarted, a new cassette may simply be placed on the surgical simulation assembly 100).
[Claim 11] MOORE discloses an inner layer carried within the convex support layer (at least ¶ 70: The skin or covering for the skeleton may be formed as two separate/separable layers, where the inner layer … simulates muscle tissue clipped to the ribs. In addition, the ribs may include numbering indicia thereon (not shown), visible by the vision system from within the skeleton to assist the user in identifying the location within the skeleton 106).
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over MOORE, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of JARC et al. (US 20140051049 A1) (JARC).
Re claims 2 and 3:
[Claims 2 and 3] As indicated earlier, MOORE discloses “the ribs may include numbering indicia thereon … visible by the vision system from within the skeleton to assist the user in identifying the location within the skeleton 106” (“¶ 70). MOORE appears to be silent on but JARC teaches or at least suggests wherein the convex support layer has at least one opening therein to define an access port, the abdominal surgical simulation model further comprising indicia on an outer surface of the compliant layer aligned with the at least one opening (at least ¶ 52: the anatomical model 101, a top surface 403 of top portion 102a can include one or more marked target locations which can act as simulated anatomy locations of a patient … top surface 403 of top portion 102a is formed to allow such markings to be erasably made (e.g., using grease pencil, white board marker, etc.). Such markings allow a training person to draw on or mark the top portion 102a to assist training and to help medical personnel understand port placement philosophy, such as to mark port relationship relative to one another (e.g., operating instrument port spacing from camera instrument port) for various different surgical procedures. An overlying membrane, such a membrane 207 (FIG. 2B) may be similarly made to allow such erasable marking. In other implementations, the marked locations are fixedly made to the top surface for standard surgical procedures that are commonly trained using the model 101). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized the port placement and target locations markings of JARC and to have modified MOORE as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over MOORE, as applied to claim 1 above in view of Wachli et al. (US 20150187229 A1) (Wachli).
Re claims 4 and 5:
[Claims 4 and 5] MOORE does not appear to explicitly disclose but Wachli teaches or at least suggests a coupling arrangement to removably secure the compliant layer to the bottom tray, wherein the coupling arrangement defines a gas tight seal for insufflation (at least ¶ 4: The first step in laparoscopic surgery is to make a small incision to access the abdomen and create pneumoperitoneum. Pneumoperitoneum is the insufflation of the abdominal cavity with carbon dioxide gas. Insufflation with gas creates a working space in the abdomen necessary for laparoscopy. Once a proper working space has been created, surgical instruments can be inserted for performing a laparoscopic procedure. This process of penetrating the abdomen and creating pneumoperitoneum prior to insertion of other instruments is called first entry; ¶ 11: The tissue structure includes at least one layer that simulates a tissue layer such as that of an abdominal wall … The simulated organs are configured to be located proximally to the simulated tissue structure and when one or more of the simulated tissue structure and receptacle are penetrated by a surgical instrument such as an optical trocar at least part of the one or more simulated organs or simulated tissue structures inside the receptacle translate distally away from the simulated tissue structure to simulate surgical insufflation of an abdominal cavity; ¶ 14: simulating surgical insufflation is provided. The method includes the step of providing a model comprising a penetrable artificial tissue structure configured to simulate an abdominal wall. The model includes a receptacle having a wall connected to the artificial tissue structure. The model includes at least one tissue simulation disposed inside the receptacle and located proximally to the artificial tissue structure …; ¶ 49: The upper surface of the layer is sealingly attached to the lower surface of the first entry model 10. It may be attached with or without adhesive … without adhesive the receptacle 102 layer is capture within the frame support 14 about its perimeter and adjacent to the plurality of layers simulating the abdominal wall. Adhesive may be employed to sealingly attach to the lower surface of the model 10 such that a portion of unadhered or unattached layer is surrounded or encompassed by a portion of the layer that is attached creating an expandable separation or pocket between the model 10 and the layer of the receptacle 102). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized the abdominal cavity insufflation features of Wachli and to have modified MOORE as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Claims 9, 18, and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over MOORE in view of Barsness et al. (US 20140329217 A1) (Barsness). Claim 9, as applied to claim 1 above, is also rejected under this heading for concision.
Re claim 9, 18, and 23-27:
[Claim 9] MOORE further discloses “The skin should be made of a material that facilitates the cutting of the skin, similar to that provided by surgery, and that allows for the user to locate the skeletal parts under the skin to locate the surgical landmarks” (¶ 72). However, MOORE appears to be silent on but Barsness teaches or at least suggests wherein the animal tissue comprises synthetic tissue (at least ¶ 26: The simulator [is] fully simulates the thoracic and abdominal cavities and contains at least one of biologic tissue and synthetic tissue that replicates required anatomy; ¶ 39: the internal tissue is synthetic internal tissue). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized the synthetic tissue feature of Barsness and to have modified MOORE as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
[Claims 18 and 26] MOORE discloses an abdominal surgical simulation model (at least ¶ 11: A surgical simulation device and associated methods are provided for simulating realistic surgery on animal organs, which is particularly useful for simulating human surgeries, such as using robotics) comprising: mounting animal tissue within a bottom tray (at least ¶ 11: The surgical simulation device may comprise a support structure, a tray carried by the support structure, and animal tissue carried by the tray; ¶ 54: a disposable tray 105 (FIG. 11); ¶ 57: the molded tray 105 … is designed to hold animal-derived organs for simulated surgery; ¶ 63: The disposable tray may be pre-loaded with a suitable animal-derived organ …); mounting a convex support layer to cover the bottom tray; and mounting a compliant layer over the convex support layer to simulate abdominal skin in an insufflated state (at least ¶ 11: The surgical simulation device may comprise a support structure … A simulated human skeleton portion may be carried by the support structure above the animal tissue, and simulated human skin may cover the simulated human skeleton portion).
MOORE appears to be silent on but Barsness teaches or at least suggests a method for making an abdominal surgical simulation model (at least ¶¶ 25, 48, 79, 132: a method of manufacturing a surgical simulator is provided and includes forming a rib cage including a plurality of ribs, providing internal tissue adapted to be positioned within the rib cage, and providing external tissue adapted to at least partially cover the rib cage …), [Claim 26] wherein the animal tissue comprises synthetic tissue (at least ¶ 26: The simulator [is] fully simulates the thoracic and abdominal cavities and contains at least one of biologic tissue and synthetic tissue that replicates required anatomy; ¶ 39: the internal tissue is synthetic internal tissue). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized the method of manufacturing a surgical simulator and the synthetic tissue features of Barsness and to have modified MOORE as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
[Claim 23] MOORE in view of Barsness teaches or at least suggests wherein the bottom tray has at least one opening therethrough; and comprising at least one of a fluid line and electrical line extending therethrough (at least MOORE: ¶ 64: … Both the tray 105 and the support base 101 may also contain one or more graduated troughs for housing tube and hoses, channels for housing additional tubes and drainage channels with apertures …; ¶ 74: fluid may… be drained from the tray 105 or the support base 101 through a drainage aperture …).
[Claims 24-25] MOORE in view of Barsness teaches or at least suggests wherein the animal tissue comprises harvested animal tissue (at least ¶ 75: … The organ blocks may be harvested from animals butchered for food), wherein the harvested animal tissue comprises harvested porcine tissue (at least ¶ 63: … The disposable tray may be pre-loaded with a suitable animal-derived organ, such as a porcine heart; ¶ 66: … the tray 105 has an indentation 105a, which is designed for use with porcine organs).
[Claim 27] MOORE in view of Barsness teaches or at least suggests mounting a base to the animal tissue defining a tissue cassette; and wherein the tissue cassette is removably positioned within the bottom tray (at least ¶ 57: the molded tray 105 … is designed to hold animal-derived organs for simulated surgery … The tray 105 and organs are sealed into a bag, which together form a “cassette.” … The loaded and sealed tray may be referred to as a “cassette” …; ¶ 63: If surgery needs to be restarted, a new cassette may simply be placed on the surgical simulation assembly 100).
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over MOORE in view of Drew et al. (US 20220101756 A1) (Drew).
Re claims 12 and 17:
[Claim 12] MOORE discloses an abdominal surgical simulation model (at least ¶ 11: A surgical simulation device and associated methods are provided for simulating realistic surgery on animal organs, which is particularly useful for simulating human surgeries, such as using robotics) comprising: a bottom tray; harvested porcine tissue … carried within the bottom tray (at least ¶ 11: The surgical simulation device may comprise a support structure, a tray carried by the support structure, and animal tissue carried by the tray; ¶ 54: a disposable tray 105 (FIG. 11); ¶ 57: the molded tray 105 … is designed to hold animal-derived organs for simulated surgery; ¶ 63: The disposable tray may be pre-loaded with a suitable animal-derived organ …); a convex support layer covering the bottom tray; and a compliant layer carried by the convex support layer to simulate abdominal skin in an insufflated state (at least ¶ 11: The surgical simulation device may comprise a support structure … A simulated human skeleton portion may be carried by the support structure above the animal tissue, and simulated human skin may cover the simulated human skeleton portion).
MOORE appears to be silent on but Drew teaches or at least suggests an electrically conductive base; tissue carried by the electrically conductive base and within the bottom tray (at least ¶ 25: allowing the surgeon to practice electrocautery; ¶ 44: the cassette can be used in methods of simulating vessel sealing exercises, wherein one or more blood vessels in the surgical system is cut, and the physician can practice sealing the cut vessel, for example, using sutures, staples, and/or electrocautery; ¶¶ 119, 120: While there is value in having intact organs on which to operate, there is also value in having organs with a defect such that, during surgery, the simulation can test the surgeon's ability to handle a “bleeder.”. The surgeon can then practice electrocautery; ¶ 138: where the tissues, organs, or organ systems described herein reside on a conductive tray, such as a metal tray, a piece of conductive tape can be adhered to the tray; ¶ 151: the cassette can be used in methods of simulating vessel sealing exercises, wherein one or more blood vessels in the surgical system is cut, and the physician can practice sealing the cut vessel, for example, using sutures, staples, and/or electrocautery; ¶ 171: … one or more blood vessels in the surgical system is cut before surgery, but a clot is present, and the clot impedes the flow of blood. Once the clot is dissolved, the cut vessel “bleeds,” and the physician has to repair the cut. The surgeon can seal the cut vessel, for example, using sutures, staples, and/or electrocautery). Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized the electrocautery surgery features of Drew and to have modified MOORE as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
[Claim 17] MOORE in view of Drew discloses wherein the bottom tray has at least one opening therethrough; and comprising at least one of a fluid line and electrical line extending therethrough (at least MOORE: ¶ 64: … Both the tray 105 and the support base 101 may also contain one or more graduated troughs for housing tube and hoses, channels for housing additional tubes and drainage channels with apertures …; ¶ 74: fluid may… be drained from the tray 105 or the support base 101 through a drainage aperture …).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over MOORE in view of Drew, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of JARC.
Re claims 13 and 14:
[Claims 13 and 14] As indicated earlier, MOORE discloses “the ribs may include numbering indicia thereon … visible by the vision system from within the skeleton to assist the user in identifying the location within the skeleton 106” (“¶ 70). MOORE in view of Drew appears to be silent on but JARC teaches or at least suggests wherein the convex support layer has at least one opening therein to define an access port, the abdominal surgical simulation model further comprising indicia on an outer surface of the compliant layer aligned with the at least one opening (at least ¶ 52: the anatomical model 101, a top surface 403 of top portion 102a can include one or more marked target locations which can act as simulated anatomy locations of a patient … top surface 403 of top portion 102a is formed to allow such markings to be erasably made (e.g., using grease pencil, white board marker, etc.). Such markings allow a training person to draw on or mark the top portion 102a to assist training and to help medical personnel understand port placement philosophy, such as to mark port relationship relative to one another (e.g., operating instrument port spacing from camera instrument port) for various different surgical procedures. An overlying membrane, such a membrane 207 (FIG. 2B) may be similarly made to allow such erasable marking. In other implementations, the marked locations are fixedly made to the top surface for standard surgical procedures that are commonly trained using the model 101). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized the port placement and target locations markings of JARC and to have modified MOORE in view of Drew as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over MOORE in view of Drew, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Wachli.
Re claims 15 and 16:
[Claims 15 and 16] MOORE in view of Drew does not appear to explicitly disclose but Wachli teaches or at least suggests a coupling arrangement to removably secure the compliant layer to the bottom tray, wherein the coupling arrangement defines a gas tight seal for insufflation (at least ¶ 4: The first step in laparoscopic surgery is to make a small incision to access the abdomen and create pneumoperitoneum. Pneumoperitoneum is the insufflation of the abdominal cavity with carbon dioxide gas. Insufflation with gas creates a working space in the abdomen necessary for laparoscopy. Once a proper working space has been created, surgical instruments can be inserted for performing a laparoscopic procedure. This process of penetrating the abdomen and creating pneumoperitoneum prior to insertion of other instruments is called first entry; ¶ 11: The tissue structure includes at least one layer that simulates a tissue layer such as that of an abdominal wall … The simulated organs are configured to be located proximally to the simulated tissue structure and when one or more of the simulated tissue structure and receptacle are penetrated by a surgical instrument such as an optical trocar at least part of the one or more simulated organs or simulated tissue structures inside the receptacle translate distally away from the simulated tissue structure to simulate surgical insufflation of an abdominal cavity; ¶ 14: simulating surgical insufflation is provided. The method includes the step of providing a model comprising a penetrable artificial tissue structure configured to simulate an abdominal wall. The model includes a receptacle having a wall connected to the artificial tissue structure. The model includes at least one tissue simulation disposed inside the receptacle and located proximally to the artificial tissue structure …; ¶ 49: The upper surface of the layer is sealingly attached to the lower surface of the first entry model 10. It may be attached with or without adhesive … without adhesive the receptacle 102 layer is capture within the frame support 14 about its perimeter and adjacent to the plurality of layers simulating the abdominal wall. Adhesive may be employed to sealingly attach to the lower surface of the model 10 such that a portion of unadhered or unattached layer is surrounded or encompassed by a portion of the layer that is attached creating an expandable separation or pocket between the model 10 and the layer of the receptacle 102). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized the abdominal cavity insufflation features of Wachli and to have modified MOORE in view of Drew as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over MOORE in view of Barsness, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of JARC.
Re claims 19 and 20:
[Claims 19 and 20] As indicated earlier, MOORE discloses “the ribs may include numbering indicia thereon … visible by the vision system from within the skeleton to assist the user in identifying the location within the skeleton 106” (“¶ 70). MOORE in view of Barsness appears to be silent on but JARC teaches or at least suggests wherein the convex support layer has at least one opening therein to define an access port, the abdominal surgical simulation model further comprising indicia on an outer surface of the compliant layer aligned with the at least one opening (at least ¶ 52: the anatomical model 101, a top surface 403 of top portion 102a can include one or more marked target locations which can act as simulated anatomy locations of a patient … top surface 403 of top portion 102a is formed to allow such markings to be erasably made (e.g., using grease pencil, white board marker, etc.). Such markings allow a training person to draw on or mark the top portion 102a to assist training and to help medical personnel understand port placement philosophy, such as to mark port relationship relative to one another (e.g., operating instrument port spacing from camera instrument port) for various different surgical procedures. An overlying membrane, such a membrane 207 (FIG. 2B) may be similarly made to allow such erasable marking. In other implementations, the marked locations are fixedly made to the top surface for standard surgical procedures that are commonly trained using the model 101). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized the port placement and target locations markings of JARC and to have modified MOORE in view of Barsness as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over MOORE in view of Barsness, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Wachli.
Re claims 21 and 22:
[Claims 21 and 22] MOORE in view of Barsness does not appear to explicitly disclose but Wachli teaches or at least suggests removably securing the compliant layer to the bottom tray with a coupling arrangement, wherein the coupling arrangement defines a gas tight seal for insufflation (at least ¶ 4: The first step in laparoscopic surgery is to make a small incision to access the abdomen and create pneumoperitoneum. Pneumoperitoneum is the insufflation of the abdominal cavity with carbon dioxide gas. Insufflation with gas creates a working space in the abdomen necessary for laparoscopy. Once a proper working space has been created, surgical instruments can be inserted for performing a laparoscopic procedure. This process of penetrating the abdomen and creating pneumoperitoneum prior to insertion of other instruments is called first entry; ¶ 11: The tissue structure includes at least one layer that simulates a tissue layer such as that of an abdominal wall … The simulated organs are configured to be located proximally to the simulated tissue structure and when one or more of the simulated tissue structure and receptacle are penetrated by a surgical instrument such as an optical trocar at least part of the one or more simulated organs or simulated tissue structures inside the receptacle translate distally away from the simulated tissue structure to simulate surgical insufflation of an abdominal cavity; ¶ 14: simulating surgical insufflation is provided. The method includes the step of providing a model comprising a penetrable artificial tissue structure configured to simulate an abdominal wall. The model includes a receptacle having a wall connected to the artificial tissue structure. The model includes at least one tissue simulation disposed inside the receptacle and located proximally to the artificial tissue structure …; ¶ 49: The upper surface of the layer is sealingly attached to the lower surface of the first entry model 10. It may be attached with or without adhesive … without adhesive the receptacle 102 layer is capture within the frame support 14 about its perimeter and adjacent to the plurality of layers simulating the abdominal wall. Adhesive may be employed to sealingly attach to the lower surface of the model 10 such that a portion of unadhered or unattached layer is surrounded or encompassed by a portion of the layer that is attached creating an expandable separation or pocket between the model 10 and the layer of the receptacle 102). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized the abdominal cavity insufflation features of Wachli and to have modified MOORE in view of Barsness as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDDY SAINT-VIL whose telephone number is (571)272-9845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:30 AM -6:00 PM.
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 on (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.
/EDDY SAINT-VIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights