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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on May 8, 2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 17 recite “a recess.” This limitation is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claimed language. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider the term as “a lumen”. Therefore claim 1 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 2-9 are also rejected based on their dependency to claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “simulated blood.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the simulated blood”); or (2) is intended to be s new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 3-6 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 2.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the reservoir.” The limitation “a reservoir of simulated blood,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the reservoir of the simulated blood”); or (2) is intended to be s new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 3-6 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 2.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “blood.” The limitation “simulated blood,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the simulated blood”); or (2) is intended to be s new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 5-6 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a reservoir.” The limitation “a reservoir of simulated blood,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[a]] the reservoir of simulated blood”); or (2) is intended to be s new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 5-6 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “simulated blood.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 10. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the simulated blood”); or (2) is intended to be s new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 10. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 11-18 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 10.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the reservoir.” The limitation “a reservoir of simulated blood,” is originally introduced in claim 10. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the reservoir of the simulated blood”); or (2) is intended to be s new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 10. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 12-15 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 11.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “blood.” The limitation “simulated blood,” is originally introduced in claim 10. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the simulated blood”); or (2) is intended to be s new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 10. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 14-15 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 13.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a reservoir.” The limitation “a reservoir of simulated blood,” is originally introduced in claim 10. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[a]] the reservoir of simulated blood”); or (2) is intended to be s new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 10. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
The closest prior art of record is U.S. PG Pub. 2023/0360562 to Lavell, et al (hereinafter referred to as “Lavell”) and U.S. PG Pub. 2021/0192976 to Segall, et al (hereinafter referred to as “Segall”). However, Lavell and Segall do not explicitly teach: “a chest wound assembly positioned within the recess of the simulated torso, the chest wound assembly comprising a cavitation fitting having a plurality of fingers defining a plurality of slits in communication with an opening of the chest wound assembly, the cavitation fitting in fluid communication with a reservoir of simulated blood and configured to produce bubbles and cavitation noises as the simulated blood is circulated to and from the chest wound assembly,” per claim 1 or “a base component; a cavitation fitting coupled to the base component, the cavitation fitting having a plurality of fingers defining a plurality of slits; and a skin layer coupled to the base component and the cavitation fitting, wherein an opening extends through the skin layer from a simulated skin surface to the cavitation fitting; wherein the cavitation fitting is configured to be in fluid communication with a reservoir of simulated blood and configured to produce bubbles and cavitation noises as simulated blood is circulated to and from the chest wound assembly,” per claim 10. Therefore, claims 1-18 are allowable subject matter, if no other statutory rejections remain. In the present case, claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§112(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights