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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 9th 2026 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitelberg et al. (US 2008/0097462) in view of Chou et al. (US 2020/0015876).
Regarding claim 1, Mitelberg et al. disclose a detachment system comprising: a generally hollow distal tube (12; the tube is distal of something such as an operator and can therefore be described as a distal tube as claimed) defining a longitudinal axis and comprising a distal end (18), a first flexible portion (any portion of 12 proximal to section 16; noting that 12 must be flexible in order to traverse the neurovasculature - ¶[0026]), and a second flexible portion (16) comprising an interference spiral cut (¶[0027]; an “interference spiral cut” is not an art-recognized term used to describe the structure of a spring or coil; the cut of Mitelberg et al. can be described as causing interference with something) throughout and positioned between the first flexible portion and the distal end; and an engagement system (20/28) configured to engage an implantable medical device (24) to the distal end of the distal tube and configured to deploy the implantable medical device from the distal end of the distal tube (¶[0038]; [0042]), wherein the engagement system compresses the second flexible portion along the longitudinal axis to a greater extent than the first flexible portion when engaging the implantable medical device (¶[0035]); and wherein the second flexible portion is configured to extend along the longitudinal axis to a greater extent than the first flexible portion when the engagement system deploys the implantable medical device (¶[0044]); the second flexible portion being formed from different cut angles and spacing in the interference spiral cuts compared to the first portion (see different cut angles and spacing formed by opening 26; this limitation does not require the first flexible portion to comprise interference spiral cuts; only that it has some type of cut angles and spacing)
Mitelberg et al. fail to disclose that the second flexible portion comprises more than one interference spiral cut.
However, Chou et al. (reasonably pertinent to Applicant’s problem of providing a catheter with a compressible distal end) effectively teach that a compressible portion (114 or 160’) of a catheter having multiple coils (Figure 3D - e.g. middle right or bottom left embodiments) formed by cuts or interference spiral cuts (¶[0521]) can perform equivalent to the same compressible portion formed from a single coil (¶[0518]-[0530]). The multiple coils can also provide less coil expansion when compressed (¶[0530]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the second flexible portion of Mitelberg et al. with the multiple coils/multiple interference spiral cuts of Chou et al. as a simple substitution of one known element (single coil) for another (multiple coils) to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 (I)(B)). Furthermore, the above modification would provide the second flexible portion with less expansion upon compression which one skilled in the art would recognize as being desirable when deploying the implant while in a narrow vessel.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Mitelberg et al. fail to disclose that both the first and second flexible portions comprise interference spiral cuts having a different pitch. Mitelberg et al. disclose that the system should be compressible to release an implantable device (¶[0044]). Chou et al. teach providing a tube with multiple compressible portions using any of various embodiments (¶[0530]; Figure 3D); some of which having interference spiral cuts of different pitch (e.g. Figure 3D bottom-middle and bottom-right) in order to customize the force required to compress the tube (¶[0530]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided multiple of the Chou et al. flexible portions with different pitches and different strengths on the tube of Mitelberg et al. to arrive at the claimed system in order to customize the amount of force required to compress the distal tube.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Mitelberg et al. fail to disclose that the distal tube measures the first and second lengths as claimed. However, Chou et al. teach compressing an intravascular catheter by the claimed amount (¶[0095]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the distal tube of Mitelberg et al. with the compression range of Chou et al. so that the first and second lengths are provided as a suitable prior art distance for compressing a catheter within the vasculature that can be accurately controlled by an operator.
Regarding claim 7, at least a difference of 0 mm between the first length and the final length could be achieved since the distal tube would be uncompressed when measuring both lengths.
Regarding claim 8, a force as claimed could be applied to the distal tube even if this is beyond the force required to fully compress the second flexible portion.
Regarding claim 10, the engagement system further comprises: a locking member (28 of Mitelberg et al.); and a loop wire (20 of Mitelberg et al.), wherein when the loop wire interacts with the locking member to engage the implantable medical device, a force on the loop wire moves the first and second flexible portions along a longitudinal axis (as modified in regard to claim 2) to the second length from the first length of the distal tube when the loop wire engages the implantable medical device (¶[0038], [0042], [0044]).
Regarding claims 11, 13, 15 and 16, Mitelberg et al. disclose a detachment system comprising: a generally hollow distal tube (12) comprising: a distal end (18); a compressible, flexible portion (16); and an engagement system configured to engage an implantable medical device at the distal end of the distal tube, the engagement system comprising: a locking member (28); and a loop wire (20a), wherein when the loop wire interacts with the locking member to engage the implantable medical device (24; Figure 10), a force on the loop wire moves the first and second flexible portions along a longitudinal axis from a first length to a second length of the distal tube when the loop wire engages the implantable medical device (¶[0038], [0042], [0044]).
Mitelberg et al. fail to disclose that the compressible, flexible portion comprises a first and second flexible portion having interference spiral cuts as claimed.
Chou et al. teach providing a tube with multiple compressible portions using any of various embodiments (¶[0530]; Figure 3D); some of which having interference spiral cuts of different pitch, cut angle and spacing (e.g. Figure 3D bottom-middle and bottom-right) in order to customize the force required to compress the tube (¶[0530]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided multiple of the Chou et al. flexible portions with different pitches and different strengths on the tube of Mitelberg et al. to arrive at the claimed system in order to customize the amount of force required to compress the distal tube. With this modification, the loop wire could move the second flexible portion along the longitudinal axis to a greater extent than the first flexible portion when engaging the implantable medical device if the second flexible portion is provided with the weaker compressible section of Chou et al.
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Mitelberg et al. fail to disclose that the distal tube measures the first and second lengths as claimed. However, Chou et al. teach compressing an intravascular catheter by the claimed amount (¶[0095]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the distal tube of Mitelberg et al. with the compression range of Chou et al. so that the first and second lengths are provided as a suitable prior art distance for compressing a catheter within the vasculature that can be accurately controlled by an operator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 17 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims 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 Thomas McEvoy whose telephone number is (571) 270-5034 and direct fax number is (571) 270-6034. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00 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, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Elizabeth Houston at (571) 272-7134. 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/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.
/THOMAS MCEVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights