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 .
Remarks
This action is in response to the amendments filed 05/12/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending and under consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 05/12/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Independent claims 1, 6, and 17 have been amended to further recite the limitation of the energy source “having a wavelength no more than 800 nanometers”. Applicant argues that the cited portion of Hennings teaches away from the amended limitation, as par. [0112] of Hennings discloses a wavelength range of 1.2 – 1.8 um. Examiner agrees. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made, as explained in the office action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, and 17 recite the limitation of the energy source “having a wavelength no more than 800 nanometers”. The instant specification does not provide support for the upper limit of 800nm and/or a lower limit below 400 nm (which is encompassed by the language “no more than 800 nanometers”. Par. [0029] of the instant specification only describes an optical energy source having a peak wavelength from 400nm – 2400nm, and does not describe the upper limit of 800nm or anything below 400 nm as claimed. Claims 2-5, 7-16, and 18-20 are rejected based on their dependency on claims 1, 6, and 17.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6-9, 11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennings et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0218146 – of record), hereinafter Hennings, and further in view of Hu et al. (Hu Z, et al. High-precision, non-invasive anti-microvascular approach via concurrent ultrasound and laser irradiation. Sci Rep. 2017 Jan 11;7:40243. doi: 10.1038/srep40243. PMID: 28074839; PMCID: PMC5225605. – of record), hereinafter Hu.
Regarding claim 1, Hennings discloses a system for removing blood clots (e.g. Abstract), the system comprising:
an optical energy source for generating an optical energy having a wavelength no more than 800 nanometers (e.g. Pars. [0035], [0042]: laser energy source used with wavelengths between 300-1200nm); and
an optical conduit for insertion into a vessel, wherein the optical conduit is configured to direct the optical energy from the optical energy from a terminal end of the optical conduit to the target location in the vessel (e.g. Par. [0031]: directing laser light through a fiber through the tip at the distal end).
However, Hennings fails to disclose an ultrasound transducer focused at a target location. Hu, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards concurrent application of ultrasound and laser irradiation. Hu discloses using an ultrasound transducer simultaneously with a laser (e.g. page 2, section titled Antivascular effect of PUT on single blood vessels: ultrasound burst applied; Fig. 1 b, c: ultrasound transducer).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hennings to include the ultrasound transducer as taught by Hu in order to provide the predictable results of precisely targeting the target location to provide treatment (e.g. Hu, abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Hennings fails to disclose where the ultrasound transducer is external to the vessel. Hu, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards concurrent application of ultrasound and laser irradiation. Hu discloses where the ultrasound transducer is external to the vessel (e.g. page 2, section titled Antivascular effect of PUT on single blood vessels: ultrasound burst applied; Fig. 1 b, c: ultrasound transducer external to the sample).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hennings in view of Hu to include the ultrasound transducer being external as taught by Hu in order to provide the predictable results of precisely targeting the target location to provide treatment (e.g. Hu, abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Hennings further discloses wherein the optical conduit has a diameter less than 750 microns (e.g. Par. [0037]: optical fiber with diameter of 100 – 550 microns).
Regarding claim 6, Hennings discloses a method comprising:
providing a sequence of laser pulses having a wavelength no more than 800 nanometers through an optical conduit into a blood vessel within the tissue space (e.g. Par. [0033]; Pars. [0035], [0042]: laser energy source used with wavelengths between 300-1200nm); and
emitting the sequence of laser pulses from the optical conduit to a blood clot within the blood vessel (e.g. Abstract; Par. [0033]).
However, Hennings fails to disclose inducing cavitation, transmitting an acoustic energy burst into a tissue space, and wherein at least one of the laser pulses of the sequence of laser pulses is synchronized with the acoustic energy burst.
Hu, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards concurrent application of ultrasound and laser irradiation. Hu discloses inducing cavitation (e.g. page 2, 4th full paragraph: synchronized laser pulses and ultrasound bursts increases cavitation, “The concurrent application of ultrasound significantly increases the likelihood of micro-cavitation in the blood vessel”), transmitting an acoustic energy burst into a tissue space (e.g. page 2, section titled Antivascular effect of PUT on single blood vessels: ultrasound burst applied; Fig. 1 b, c: ultrasound transducer), and wherein at least one of the laser pulses of the sequence of laser pulses is synchronized with the acoustic energy burst (e.g. page 2, 4th full paragraph: synchronized laser pulses and ultrasound bursts, “PUT applies synchronized laser pulses and ultrasound bursts on target tissue”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hennings to include inducing cavitation, transmitting an acoustic energy burst into a tissue space, and wherein at least one of the laser pulses of the sequence of laser pulses is synchronized with the acoustic energy burst as taught by Hu in order to provide the predictable results of precisely targeting the target location to provide treatment (e.g. Hu, abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Hennings further discloses providing the sequence of laser pulses, and emitting the sequence of laser pulses without damaging the tissue space or the blood vessel (e.g. Par. [0033]; Par. [0114]: “the laser energy delivered… will do little or no damage to the tissue surrounding the vein, including very little heating of the tissue that would otherwise cause pain, swelling or purpura in the dermis”). However, Hennings fails to disclose transmitting an acoustic signal.
Hu, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards concurrent application of ultrasound and laser irradiation. Hu discloses transmitting an acoustic energy burst into a tissue space (e.g. page 2, section titled Antivascular effect of PUT on single blood vessels: ultrasound burst applied; Fig. 1 b, c: ultrasound transducer).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hennings in view of Hu to include transmitting an acoustic energy burst into a tissue space as taught by Hu in order to provide the predictable results of precisely targeting the target location to provide treatment (e.g. Hu, abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Hennings fails to disclose wherein the acoustic energy burst has a pressure of about 1 MPa or less. Hu, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards concurrent application of ultrasound and laser irradiation. Hu discloses wherein the acoustic energy burst has a pressure of about 1 MPa or less (e.g. page 2, section titled Antivascular effect of PUT on single blood vessels: ultrasound burst applied with pressure of 0.45 MPa).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hennings in view of Hu to include the acoustic energy burst having a pressure of 1MPa or less as taught by Hu in order to provide the predictable results of precisely targeting the target location to provide treatment (e.g. Hu, abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Hennings further discloses wherein the optical conduit is a fiber optic inserted into the blood vessel (e.g. Par. [0033]).
Regarding claim 11, Hennings fails to disclose wherein a laser fluence of the laser pulses is between about 0.1 and 500 mJ/cm2. Hu, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards concurrent application of ultrasound and laser irradiation. Hu discloses wherein a laser fluence of the laser pulses is between about 0.1 and 500 mJ/cm2 (e.g. page 2, section titled Antivascular effect of PUT on single blood vessels: laser fluence of 2-8 mJ/cm2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hennings in view of Hu to include the laser fluence of the laser pulses is between about 0.1 and 500 mJ/cm2as taught by Hu in order to provide the predictable results of precisely targeting the target location to provide treatment (e.g. Hu, abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Hennings further discloses wherein the target is a blood clot (e.g. Abstract). However, Hennings fails to disclose producing cavitation in the target at a confluence of the acoustic energy burst and the sequence of laser pulses to produce thermoelastic stress in the target based at least in part on the target absorbing optical energy from at least some of the sequence of laser pulses.
Hu, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards concurrent application of ultrasound and laser irradiation. Hu discloses producing cavitation in the target at a confluence of the acoustic energy burst and the sequence of laser pulses to produce thermoelastic stress in the target based at least in part on the target absorbing optical energy from at least some of the sequence of laser pulses (e.g. page 2, 4th full paragraph: synchronized laser pulses and ultrasound bursts increases cavitation, “The concurrent application of ultrasound significantly increases the likelihood of micro-cavitation in the blood vessel”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hennings in view of Hu to include producing cavitation in the target as taught by Hu in order to provide the predictable results of precisely targeting the target location to provide treatment (e.g. Hu, abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Hennings fails to disclose producing the cavitation in the blood clot without introducing exogenous agents into the blood vessel. Hu, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards concurrent application of ultrasound and laser irradiation. Hu discloses roducing the cavitation in the blood clot without introducing exogenous agents into the blood vessel (e.g. page 2, 4th full paragraph: PUT is agent-free; page 7, section titled Discussion: no exogenous agent required, “PUT involves concurrently using safe light and safe ultrasound to achieve highly selective, precise treatment of microvessels without requiring an exogenous agent.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hennings in view of Hu to include producing the cavitation in the blood clot without introducing exogenous agents into the blood vessel as taught by Hu in order to provide the predictable results of highly selective, precise treatment (e.g. Hu, page 7, section titled Discussion).
Regarding claim 15, Hennings in view of Hu further discloses wherein the cavitation induces thrombolysis (e.g. Hennings, Abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Hennings fails to disclose wherein the acoustic energy burst has a pressure that is insufficient to cause cavitation alone. Hu, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards concurrent application of ultrasound and laser irradiation. Hu discloses wherein the acoustic energy burst has a pressure that is insufficient to cause cavitation alone (e.g. page 2, section titled Antivascular effect of PUT on single blood vessels: ultrasound applied alone is not enough, “When either laser or ultrasound was applied alone, the changes in vessel diameters were insignificant.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hennings in view of Hu to include wherein the acoustic energy burst has a pressure that is insufficient to cause cavitation alone as taught by Hu in order to provide the predictable results of precisely targeting the target location to provide treatment (e.g. Hu, abstract).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennings et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0218146 – of record), hereinafter Hennings, and further in view of Hu et al. (Hu Z, et al. High-precision, non-invasive anti-microvascular approach via concurrent ultrasound and laser irradiation. Sci Rep. 2017 Jan 11;7:40243. doi: 10.1038/srep40243. PMID: 28074839; PMCID: PMC5225605. – of record), hereinafter Hu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nguyen et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0143359 – of record), hereinafter Nguyen.
Regarding claim 3, Hennings fails to disclose the system further comprising a particle filter circumferentially attached to the terminal end of the optical conduit. Nguyen, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards a thrombus capture system. Nguyen discloses the system comprising a filter circumferentially attached to the terminal end of the optical conduit to remove debris such as blood clots (e.g. Abstract; Par. [0108]: thrombus capture system 8; Fig. 1: thrombus catching system circumferentially attached to terminal end of the catheter).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hennings in view of Hu to include a filter as taught by Nguyen in order to provide the predictable results of capturing and removing debris such as blood clots.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennings et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0218146 – of record), hereinafter Hennings, and further in view of Hu et al. (Hu Z, et al. High-precision, non-invasive anti-microvascular approach via concurrent ultrasound and laser irradiation. Sci Rep. 2017 Jan 11;7:40243. doi: 10.1038/srep40243. PMID: 28074839; PMCID: PMC5225605. – of record), hereinafter Hu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Neuberger (US Patent Application Publication 2010/0179525 – of record).
Regarding claim 4, Hennings fails to disclose wherein the terminal end of the optical conduit includes an optical diffuser tip for expanding an illumination area of the optical energy emitted from the optical conduit. Neuberger, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards treating veins. Neuberger discloses wherein the terminal end of the optical conduit includes an optical diffuser tip for expanding an illumination area of the optical energy emitted from the optical conduit (e.g. Par. [0097]: the diffuser tip leads to efficient 360 degree radial emission).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hennings in view of Hu to include the diffuser tip as taught by Neuberger in order to provide the predictable results of expanding the illumination area.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennings et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0218146 – of record), hereinafter Hennings, and further in view of Hu et al. (Hu Z, et al. High-precision, non-invasive anti-microvascular approach via concurrent ultrasound and laser irradiation. Sci Rep. 2017 Jan 11;7:40243. doi: 10.1038/srep40243. PMID: 28074839; PMCID: PMC5225605. – of record), hereinafter Hu, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Janis et al. (Abram D. Janis, Lisa A. Buckley, Kenton W. Gregory M.D., "Laser thrombolysis in an in-vitro model," Proc. SPIE 3907, Lasers in Surgery: Advanced Characterization, Therapeutics, and Systems X, (17 May 2000); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.386303 – of record), hereinafter Janis.
Regarding claim 10, Hennings fails to specifically disclose wherein the optical power of the laser pulses is about 50mW or less. Janis is directed towards laser thrombolysis. Janis discloses wherein an optical power of the laser pulses is between about 1 and 200 mW (e.g. Abstract: average power used was about 100 mW).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hennigs in view of Hu to include the optical power being between 1 and 200 mW as taught by Janis in order to provide the predictable results of efficient blood clot removal.
Hennings in view of Hu and Janis discloses the claimed invention except for the optical power being 50 mW or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention as taught by Hennings in view of Hu and Janis with the optical power being 50 mW or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art [In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233].
Regarding claim 12, Hennings fails to disclose wherein a laser power of the laser pulses is less than 100 mW and an ultrasound pressure of the acoustic energy burst is less than 5 MPa. Hu, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards concurrent application of ultrasound and laser irradiation. Hu discloses wherein the acoustic energy burst has a pressure of less than 5 MPa (e.g. page 2, section titled Antivascular effect of PUT on single blood vessels: ultrasound burst applied with pressure of 0.45 MPa).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hennings in view of Hu to include the acoustic energy burst having a pressure of 1MPa or less as taught by Hu in order to provide the predictable results of precisely targeting the target location to provide treatment (e.g. Hu, abstract).
However, Hennings in view of Hu fails to disclose wherein a laser power of the laser pulses is less than 100 mW. Janis is directed towards laser thrombolysis. Janis discloses wherein an optical power of the laser pulses is less than 100 mW (e.g. Abstract: average power used was about 100 mW; page 585: Table 1: power of 99.2 mW used).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hennings in view of Hu to include the optical power being less than 100 mW as taught by Janis in order to provide the predictable results of efficient blood clot removal.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennings et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0218146 – of record), hereinafter Hennings, further in view of Hu et al. (Hu Z, et al. High-precision, non-invasive anti-microvascular approach via concurrent ultrasound and laser irradiation. Sci Rep. 2017 Jan 11;7:40243. doi: 10.1038/srep40243. PMID: 28074839; PMCID: PMC5225605. – of record), hereinafter Hu, and further in view of Yang et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0312552 – of record), hereinafter Yang.
Regarding claim 17, Hennings discloses a method inducing thrombolysis (e.g. Abstract), the method comprising:
positioning an optical conduit inside a vessel of the patient's body with a terminal end of the optical conduit proximate the target location (e.g. Par. [0031]: directing laser light through a fiber through the tip at the distal end); and
providing a laser pulse having a wavelength no more than 800 nanometers through the optical conduit into the vessel to emit optical energy from the optical conduit to the target location (e.g. Par. [0031]: directing laser light through a fiber through the tip at the distal end; Pars. [0035], [0042]: laser energy source used with wavelengths between 300-1200nm).
However, Hennings fails to disclose positioning an acoustic energy source outside of a patient’s body and focused at a target location, transmitting an acoustic energy burst transcutaneously to the target location, wherein the laser pulse is synchronized with a rarefaction phase of the acoustic enemy burst at the target location, and causing cavitation in the vessel.
Hu, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards concurrent application of ultrasound and laser irradiation. Hu discloses positioning an acoustic energy source outside of a patient’s body and focused at a target location (e.g. page 2, section titled Antivascular effect of PUT on single blood vessels: ultrasound burst applied; Fig. 1 b, c: ultrasound transducer external to the sample), transmitting an acoustic energy burst transcutaneously to the target location (e.g. page 2, section titled Antivascular effect of PUT on single blood vessels: ultrasound burst applied; Fig. 1 b, c: ultrasound transducer), and causing cavitation in the vessel (e.g. page 2, 4th full paragraph: synchronized laser pulses and ultrasound bursts increases cavitation, “The concurrent application of ultrasound significantly increases the likelihood of micro-cavitation in the blood vessel”), and wherein at least one of the laser pulses of the sequence of laser pulses is synchronized with the acoustic energy burst (e.g. page 2, 4th full paragraph: synchronized laser pulses and ultrasound bursts, “PUT applies synchronized laser pulses and ultrasound bursts on target tissue”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hennings to include the acoustic energy as taught by Hu in order to provide the predictable results of precisely targeting the target location to provide treatment (e.g. Hu, abstract).
However, Hennings in view of Hu fails to specifically disclose wherein the laser pulse is synchronized with a rarefaction phase of the acoustic enemy burst at the target location, and causing cavitation in the vessel.
Yang, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards a method and apparatus for removing microvessels using acoustic and optical energy. Yang discloses wherein the laser pulse is synchronized with a rarefaction phase of the acoustic enemy burst at the target location (e.g. Abstract; Par. [0009]: providing acoustic and optical energy concurrently to cause cavitation, “providing an optical energy to the target location concurrently with the acoustic energy… The combination of the pressure of the acoustic energy and the fluence of the optical energy causes cavitation in blood.”; Par. [0045]: laser pulse is delivers at the beginning of each ultrasound burst to overlay the rarefaction phase at the target location).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hennings in view of Hu to include wherein the laser pulse is synchronized with a rarefaction phase of the acoustic enemy burst at the target location as taught by Yang in order to provide the predictable results of providing the acoustic energy needed for producing thrombolysis and increasing the likelihood of cavitation (e.g. Yang, par. [0045]).
Regarding claim 19, Hennings fails to disclose repeating the acoustic energy burst and laser pulse for a treatment time of less than 150 seconds to produce thrombolysis. Yang, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards a method and apparatus for removing microvessels using acoustic and optical energy. Yang discloses repeating the acoustic energy burst and laser pulse for a treatment time of less than 150 seconds (e.g. Par. [0049]: treatment time can be 1 minute, which is 60 seconds).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hennings in view of Hu and Yang to include repeating the acoustic energy burst and laser pulse for a treatment time of less than 150 seconds as taught by Yang in order to provide the predictable results of providing the necessary length of treatment to produce thrombolysis.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennings et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0218146 – of record), hereinafter Hennings, further in view of Hu et al. (Hu Z, et al. High-precision, non-invasive anti-microvascular approach via concurrent ultrasound and laser irradiation. Sci Rep. 2017 Jan 11;7:40243. doi: 10.1038/srep40243. PMID: 28074839; PMCID: PMC5225605. – of record), hereinafter Hu, and further in view of Yang et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0312552 – of record), hereinafter Yang, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Gertner et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0257561 – of record), hereinafter Gertner.
Regarding claim 18, Hennings further discloses aiming the terminal end of the optical conduit (e.g. Par. [0031]: directing laser light through a fiber through the tip at the distal end). However, Hennings fails to disclose aiming the terminal end of the optical conduit with a guidewire positioned inside the optical conduit. Gertner, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards the treatment of a nervous system of a patient using ultrasound energy. Gertner discloses positioning the catheter with a guidewire positioned inside (e.g. Par. [0254]: a guidewire is used determine treatment areas).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hennings in view of Hu and Yang to include positioning the catheter with a guidewire positioned inside as taught by Gertner in order to provide the predictable results of providing improved detection of treatment areas.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennings et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0218146 – of record), hereinafter Hennings, further in view of Hu et al. (Hu Z, et al. High-precision, non-invasive anti-microvascular approach via concurrent ultrasound and laser irradiation. Sci Rep. 2017 Jan 11;7:40243. doi: 10.1038/srep40243. PMID: 28074839; PMCID: PMC5225605. – of record), hereinafter Hu, and further in view of Yang et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0312552 – of record), hereinafter Yang, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Nguyen et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0143359 – of record), hereinafter Nguyen.
Regarding claim 20, Hennings fails to disclose capturing debris from a blood clot at the target location with a filter positioned on the optical conduit. Nguyen, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards a thrombus capture system. Nguyen discloses capturing debris from a blood clot at the target location with a filter positioned on the optical conduit (e.g. Abstract; Par. [0108]: thrombus capture system 8; Fig. 1: thrombus catching system circumferentially attached to terminal end of the catheter).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hennings in view of Hu and Yang to include a filter as taught by Nguyen in order to provide the predictable results of capturing and removing debris such as blood clots.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHREYA P ANJARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-9083. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/SHREYA ANJARIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights