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 .
Notice of Amendment
In response to the amendment filed on 9/26/2025, cancelled claims 11 and 19 are acknowledged. Claims 1-10, 12-18, and 20 remain pending. The following new and reiterated grounds of rejection are set forth.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/26/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 12-14, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soukup et al. (US Publication No. 2006/0089569 A1) (cited by Applicant), further in view of Hollett (US Publication No. 2013/0053766 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Soukup et al. discloses a device comprising:
a tubular member (102) with a longitudinal axis having a proximal end and a distal end;
at least one partial cut (126) located at, along or near the distal end of the tubular member, the at least one partial cut comprising an orientation that is angled relative to both the longitudinal axis and an axis transverse to the longitudinal axis (see Figure 1 and [0032]); and
a second member (104) positioned colinear to the tubular member and configured to selectively change a length of the at least one partial cut along the longitudinal axis and advance the distal end of the tubular member longitudinally (see DA in Figure 1 vs. DD in Figure 3 and [0033] and [0037]);
wherein the distal end of the tubular member is configured to longitudinally elongate along or near an area of the at least one partial cut (see DA in Figure 1 vs. DD in Figure 3 and [0033] and [0037]).
It is noted Soukup et al. does not specifically teach the distal end of the tubular member is configured to at least partially rotate around the longitudinal axis when the second member is advanced relative to the tubular member so at to facilitate placement of the distal end in a particular branch of a subject's intraluminal network. However, Hollett teaches the distal end (14) of the tubular member (12) is configured to at least partially rotate around the longitudinal axis when the second member (18) is advanced relative to the tubular member so at to facilitate placement of the distal end in a particular branch (32) of a subject's intraluminal network (28) (see Figure 1 and [0036] and [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Soukup et al. to include the distal end of the tubular member is configured to at least partially rotate around the longitudinal axis when the second member is advanced relative to the tubular member so at to facilitate placement of the distal end in a particular branch of a subject's intraluminal network, as disclosed in Hollett, so as to rotate the distal end to selectively point toward the desired branch so that the desired branch may be efficiently cannulated (see Hollett: [0036]).
Regarding claim 2, Soukup et al. teaches the at least one partial cut (126) extends throughout an entire thickness of a wall of the tubular member (see Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Soukup et al. teaches the at least one partial cut comprises a spiral or helical shape (see Figure 1 and [0032]).
Regarding claim 6, Soukup et al. teaches the second member is secured to the tubular member along the distal end of the tubular member (see [0039]).
Regarding claim 7, Soukup et al. teaches the second member is secured to the tubular member using at least one of an adhesive and a mechanical connection (see [0039]).
Regarding claim 8, neither Soukup et al. nor Hollett specifically teach the second member is not secured to the first member. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second member not secured to the first member, since it has been held that making attached structures separable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Regarding claim 9, Soukup et al. teaches the tubular member comprises a lumen (108) through which the second member is selectively moved (see Figures 1-2 and [0035]).
Regarding claim 12, Hollett teaches the device comprises a guidewire (see [0030]).
Regarding claim 13, Soukup et al. discloses a device comprising:
a tubular member (102) with a longitudinal axis having a proximal end and a distal end (see Figure 1 and [0032]);
at least one partial cut (126) located at, along or near the distal end of the tubular member, the at least one partial cut comprising an orientation that is angled relative to both the longitudinal axis and an axis transverse to the longitudinal axis (see Figure 1 and [0032]); and
an elongated member (104) positioned colinear to the tubular member and configured to selectively modify a length of the tubular member along the at least one partial cut (see DA in Figure 1 vs. DD in Figure 3 and [0033] and [0037]); and
wherein the distal end of the tubular member is configured to longitudinally elongate along or near an area of the at least one partial cut (see DA in Figure 1 vs. DD in Figure 3 and [0033] and [0037]).
It is noted Soukup et al. does not specifically teach movement of the elongated member relative to the tubular member converts longitudinal displacement into rotational movement, causing the distal end of the tubular member to at least partially rotate about the longitudinal axis when the elongated member is advanced relative to the tubular member so at to facilitate placement of the distal end in a particular branch of a subject's intraluminal network. However, Hollett teaches movement of the elongated member (18) relative to the tubular member (12) converts longitudinal displacement into rotational movement, causing the distal end (14) of the tubular member to at least partially rotate about the longitudinal axis when the elongated member is advanced relative to the tubular member so at to facilitate placement of the distal end in a particular branch (32) of a subject's intraluminal network (28) (see Figure 1 and [0036] and [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Soukup et al. to include movement of the elongated member relative to the tubular member converts longitudinal displacement into rotational movement, causing the distal end of the tubular member to at least partially rotate about the longitudinal axis when the elongated member is advanced relative to the tubular member so at to facilitate placement of the distal end in a particular branch of a subject's intraluminal network, as disclosed in Hollett, so as to rotate the distal end to selectively point toward the desired branch so that the desired branch may be efficiently cannulated (see Hollett: [0036]).
Regarding claim 14, Soukup et al. teaches the at least one partial cut (126) extends throughout an entire thickness of a wall of the tubular member (see Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 16, Soukup et al. teaches the at least one partial cut comprises a spiral or helical shape (see Figure 1 and [0032]).
Regarding claim 17, Soukup et al. teaches the second member is secured to the tubular member along the distal end of the tubular member (see [0039]).
Regarding claim 18, neither Soukup et al. nor Hollett specifically teach the second member is not secured to the tubular member. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second member not secured to the first member, since it has been held that making attached structures separable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Regarding claim 20, Hollett teaches the device comprises a guidewire (see [0030]).
Claim(s) 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soukup et al. and Hollett, further in view of Heidner et al. (US Publication No. 2009/0177119 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, it is noted neither Soukup et al. nor Hollett specifically teach the at least one partial cut does not extend throughout an entire thickness of a wall of the tubular member. However, Heidner et al. teaches the at least one partial cut does not extend throughout an entire thickness of a wall of the tubular member (see [0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Soukup et al. and Hollett to include the at least one partial cut does not extend throughout an entire thickness of a wall of the tubular member, as disclosed in Heidner et al., so as to enhance the flexibility of the tubular member while still allowing for suitable torque transmission characteristics (see Heidner et al.: [0058]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soukup et al. and Hollett, further in view of Vrba (US Patent No. 8,556,914 B2) (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 5, it is noted neither Soukup et al. nor Hollett specifically teach an angle of the at least one partial cut relative to the longitudinal axis is between 10 and 80 degrees. However, Vrba teaches an angle of the at least one partial cut (52) relative to the longitudinal axis is between 10 and 80 degrees (see Figure 1 and col. 5, lines 21-48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Soukup et al. and Hollett to include an angle of the at least one partial cut relative to the longitudinal axis is between 10 and 80 degrees, as disclosed in Vrba, so as to aid a user of the device in crossing an occlusion in a vessel and/or increase the lateral flexibility of the tubular member (see Vrba: Abstract).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soukup et al. and Hollett, further in view of Soukup et al. (US Publication No. 2007/0135733 A1; hereinafter Soukup #2) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, Hollett teaches a handle assembly, wherein a portion of the handle assembly is secured to the second member, wherein movement of the first portion relative to the second portion of the handle assembly facilitate movement of the tubular member relative to the second member (see [0039]) but does not specifically teach a portion of the handle assembly is secured to the tubular member. However, Soukup #2 teaches a handle assembly (200), wherein a first portion (204) of the handle assembly is secured to the tubular member (102) and a second portion (208) of the handle assembly is secured to the second member (104), wherein movement of the first portion relative to the second portion of the handle assembly facilitate movement of the tubular member relative to the second member (see Figures 1-3 and [0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Soukup et al. and Hollett to include a handle assembly, wherein a first portion of the handle assembly is secured to the tubular member and a second portion of the handle assembly is secured to the second member, wherein movement of the first portion relative to the second portion of the handle assembly facilitate movement of the tubular member relative to the second member, as disclosed in Soukup #2, so as to articulate the device into and within various tortuous pathways (e.g. body lumens) to facilitate the performance of various minimally invasive procedures (see Soukup #2: [0049]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN B HENSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM ET - 5 PM ET.
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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571) 272-3672. 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.
/DEVIN B HENSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights