DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 17 February 2026. Claims 1, 27-31, 33-34, 36-47 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-Claim 1 recites “occlusion device” (“device” being a generic placeholder). There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to prevent flow of the liquid in the anatomic lumen. According to the specification the occlusion device includes expandable devices [0049] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 1 recites “control system” (“system” being a generic placeholder). There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to actuate the robot-assisted manipulator to translate the catheter as liquid is released from the distal portion into the anatomic lumen. According to the specification the control system includes at least one memory and at least one computer processor for effecting control [0103] and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weitzner (U.S. 7955316) in view of Caplan (U.S. 20150148738).
Regarding Claim 1, Weitzner teaches a system comprising: a liquid source from which a liquid is delivered; [Abstract; “a source of fluid”] a catheter coupled to the liquid source, [Abstract; “a fluid line configured for coupling the source of fluid to the catheter”] the catheter including a distal portion, [Fig. 12, element 1306] wherein the catheter is configured to release the liquid from the distal portion into an anatomic lumen; an occlusion device coupled to the catheter and configured to prevent flow of the liquid in the anatomic lumen proximally of the occlusion device; [Fig. 4, element 94 (balloon control)] a computer processor; [Fig. 3, element 76 (input device/user interface)]—the input device in relation to the controller (a microprocessor) is interpreted to function as a computer processor,
a robot-assisted manipulator coupled to the catheter; [Abstract; “A robotic medical system for use with an intravascular catheter”] and a control system coupled to the computer processor, [Fig. 3, element 72 (controller)], Weitzner is silent on wherein the control system is configured to simultaneously actuate the robot-assisted manipulator to translate the catheter as the liquid is released from the distal portion into the anatomic lumen. Caplan teaches wherein the control system is configured to actuate the robot-assisted manipulator to translate the catheter as the liquid is released from the distal portion into the anatomic lumen [0178; “In some embodiments, contiguous tissue portions are treated by device 100 continuously, as expandable assembly 130 is translated proximally and/or distally, such as via a manual or automated retraction and/or advancement, respectively, as has been described in reference to FIG. 1 hereabove. In some embodiments, ablative fluid 331 is delivered as expandable assembly 130 translates at a rate of at least 10 cm per minute.”] with reference to Figs 1 and 2 where the controller and motion transfer (elements 310 and 320, respectively) assembly are interpreted as the robot-assisted manipulator, the catheter is interpreted as the ablation catheter (element 100) and the distal portion of the catheter is interpreted as the distal end of the shaft (element 111a) described in [0190].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow for simultaneous translation and liquid release as taught by Caplan to control the release and direction of fluid as suggested by Weitzner as Weitzner discusses moving the catheter within one degree of freedom and directing the fluid delivery controller to deliver fluid from the fluid source(s) into fluid inlet port(s) [Col 3, lines 9-20] with Caplan because Caplan teaches treating contiguous and nondiscontiguous tissue portions continuously [0178].
Regarding Claim 37, Weitzner further teaches further comprising a suction source configured to remove the liquid from the anatomic lumen [Col 4, lines 33-35].
Claim(s) 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 36, 38, 39, 40, 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weitzner (U.S. 7955316) in view of Caplan (U.S. 20150148738), and in further view of Panescu (WO 2019051251).
Regarding Claim 27, Weitzner and Caplan are silent on further comprising: a heating device near the distal portion of the catheter, the heating device configured to heat the liquid to a temperature less than a vaporization temperature for the liquid. Panescu teaches further comprising: a heating device near the distal portion of the catheter, [00121] the heating device configured to heat the liquid to a temperature less than a vaporization temperature for the liquid [00121].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a heating element to heat the liquid to a temperature less than a vaporization temperature as taught by Panescu to deliver fluid within an anatomical vessel as suggested by Weitzner and Caplan, as Weitzner discusses the use of robotic systems to control parameters of fluid delivery into the patient [Col 1, lines 54-60] and Caplan which discloses the use of a distal heating element [0184] with Panescu because Panescu teaches the aspect of particularly controlling the parameter of energy delivery and temperature control [0075].
Regarding Claim 28, Weitzner and Caplan are silent on wherein the heating device is positioned within a lumen of the catheter at the distal portion of the catheter. Panescu teaches wherein the heating device is positioned within a lumen of the catheter at the distal portion of the catheter [Fig. 4, element 234].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a heating element within the lumen of the catheter at the distal portion of the catheter as taught by Panescu to deliver fluid within an anatomical vessel as suggested by Weitzner and Caplan, as Weitzner discusses the process of clinicians manipulating the proximal end of the catheter to guide a distal end inside the body [Col 1, lines 42-45] and Caplan which discloses a heat generator that adds heat to a vaporized liquid [0037] with Panescu because Panescu teaches the aspect of controlling power and temperature depending on specific local conditions to avoid overheating [0075].
Regarding Claim 29, Weitzner and Caplan are silent on wherein the heating device includes a resistive coil, a resistive wire, an RF device, a microwave device, an ultrasound device, a high intensity focused ultrasound device, or an RF wire mesh. Panescu teaches wherein the heating device includes a resistive coil, a resistive wire, an RF device, a microwave device, an ultrasound device, a high intensity focused ultrasound device, or an RF wire mesh [00121].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a heating element such as a resistive coil, wire, RF device, microwave, ultrasound, or high intensity focused ultrasound as taught by Panescu to deliver fluid within an anatomical vessel as suggested by Weitzner and Caplan, as Weitzner discusses the use of secondary systems, incorporated with the catheter such as ultrasound, to aid in guidance during surgical procedures [Col 8, lines 1-2] and Caplan which includes a heating coil or wire within the heat generator [0037] with Panescu because Panescu teaches the aspect of using thermally conductive technologies to heat the liquid to less than a steam-producing phase [00121].
Regarding Claim 30, Weitzner and Caplan are silent on wherein the heating device includes an optical fiber optically coupled to a light source, the optical fiber extending within the catheter. Panescu teaches wherein the heating device includes an optical fiber optically coupled to a light source, the optical fiber extending within the catheter [0078].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate optical fiber cable as a means of visualizing internal anatomy as taught by Panescu to deliver fluids (e.g. contrast agents) for purposes of visualization as suggested by Weitzner and Caplan, as Weitzner discusses the use of contrast agents as the fluids delivered to the patient and imaging techniques [Col 12, lines 17-20] and Caplan which discloses delivering laser energy with optical fibers to ablate tissue [0048] with Panescu because Panescu teaches the use of a fiber optic lens with the catheter to visualize airways [0079].
Regarding Claim 33, Weitzner and Caplan are silent on wherein the control system is configured to at least partially collapse the occlusion device to allow for translation of the catheter within the anatomic lumen. Panescu teaches wherein the control system is configured to at least partially collapse the occlusion device to allow for translation of the catheter within the anatomic lumen [0086; “The first shaft 529 comprises a lumen 533 through which a second shaft 230 comprising at least one ablation electrode 534 and the distal balloon 581 may together be telescopically advanced.”]—the distal balloon is interpreted to be the occlusion device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a mechanism for collapsing the occlusion structure as taught by Panescu to prevent fluid leakage as suggested by Weitzner and Caplan, as Weitzner discusses the use of a gasket to form a seal to prevent any leakage [Col 12, lines 29-34] and Caplan which discloses applying negative pressure to cause the balloon to collapse [0185] with Panescu because Panescu teaches the use the of these balloons to occlude or partially occlude airways in the patient [0088].
Regarding Claim 36, Weitzner and Caplan are silent on wherein the liquid includes a radiopaque material or an antimicrobial material. Panescu teaches wherein the liquid includes a radiopaque material or an antimicrobial material [0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a radiopaque material as the liquid as taught by Panescu to enhance imaging procedures as suggested by Weitzner and Caplan, as Weitzner discusses the use of contrast agents as the fluids delivered to the patient and imaging techniques [Col 12, lines 17-20] and Caplan which discloses use of a radiopaque material [0033] with Panescu because Panescu teaches the use of radiopaque materials to enhance RF ablation [0054].
Regarding Claim 38, Weitzner and Caplan are silent on further comprising a flush reservoir coupled to the catheter and configured to deliver a flushing medium to the occlusion device. Panescu teaches further comprising a flush reservoir coupled to the catheter and configured to deliver a flushing medium to the occlusion device [0073].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a flushing medium to the occlusion device as taught by Panescu inflate and deflate the ballons as suggested by Weitzner and Caplan, as Weitzner discusses this feature to move the catheter through a blood vessel [Col 6, lines 36-40] and Caplan which discloses an agitating assembly including a balloon that can be inflated and deflated to agitate delivered ablative fluid [0039] with Panescu because Panescu teaches inflation as a means to strategically place components of the device adjacent to a tumor [0078].
Regarding Claim 39, Weitzner and Caplan are silent on further comprising a heating coil to heat the liquid, wherein the heating coil extends within a length of the catheter proximal to the distal portion. Panescu teaches further comprising a heating coil to heat the liquid, wherein the heating coil extends within a length of the catheter proximal to the distal portion [Fig. 7, element 243] and [0075].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a heating element through the length of the catheter proximal to the distal portion as taught by Panescu to deliver fluid within an anatomical vessel as suggested by Weitzner and Caplan, as Weitzner discusses clinicians manipulating the proximal end of the catheter to guide the distal end inside the body [Col 1, lines 44-46] and Caplan which includes a heating coil or wire within the heat generator [0037] with Panescu because Panescu teaches this design aspect of the heating element running through the shaft of the catheter to allow for control of local conditions and to avoid overheating [0075].
Regarding Claim 40, Weitzner and Caplan are silent on further comprising a visualization system including a fiber optic cable and lens to visualize a placement of the occlusion device. Panescu teaches further comprising a visualization system including a fiber optic cable and lens to visualize a placement of the occlusion device [0079 and 0098].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate optical fiber cable and lens as a means of visualizing internal anatomy as taught by Panescu to deliver fluid for purposes of visualization as suggested by Weitzner and Caplan, as Weitzner discusses receiving visual feedback during the procedure through video camera or endoscope [Col 1, lines 49-53] and Caplan which discloses delivering laser energy with optical fibers to ablate tissue [0048] Panescu because Panescu teaches the use of a fiber optic lens with the catheter to visualize airways [0079].
Regarding Claim 45, Weitzner and Caplan are silent on wherein the control system is configured to receive information about a size or a volume of the anatomic lumen and control a volume of the liquid released from the distal portion based on the received information about the size or volume of the anatomic lumen. Panescu teaches wherein the control system is configured to receive information about a size or a volume of the anatomic lumen and control a volume of the liquid released from the distal portion based on the received information about the size or volume of the anatomic lumen [0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the device to communicate information about the anatomy as taught by Panescu to provide for fine adjustment of the catheter as suggested by Weitzner and Caplan, as Weitzner discusses the use of detector feedback to provide for fine movement of the catheters in increments [Col 9, lines 25-30] and Caplan which discloses delivering various volumes of ablative fluid during different time periods [0013] with Panescu because Panescu teaches the use electrodes to determine conductive fluid conditions [0060].
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weitzner (U.S. 7955316) in view of Caplan (U.S. 20150148738), in further view of Panescu (WO 2019051251) and in even further view of Wilkening (U.S. 20130184571).
Regarding Claim 31, Weitzner, Caplan and Panescu are silent on wherein the heating device includes a magnetic field generator configured to excite a plurality of magnetic particles in the liquid. Wilkening teaches wherein the heating device includes a magnetic field generator configured to excite a plurality of magnetic particles in the liquid [0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a magnetic field generator as a heating element as taught by Wilkening to deliver fluid within an anatomical vessel as suggested by Weitzner, Caplan and Panescu, as Weitzner discusses the use of contrast agents and other special purpose fluids for the purposes of imaging and visualization [Col 12, lines 13-24], Caplan which discloses using a functional element specifically as a magnetic field generator [0149] and Panescu which discusses the use of magnetic-based technologies to visualize and guide catheter [00109] with Wilkening because Wilkening teaches a similar object of the invention to guide movement to particles to allow for repositioning while the device is within a patient for imaging purposes [0032].
Claim(s) 34, 46, 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weitzner (U.S. 7955316) in view of Caplan (U.S. 20150148738), and in further view of Olson (U.S. 20200383688).
Regarding Claim 34, Weitzner and Caplan are silent on further comprising: an outer catheter, wherein the catheter is an inner catheter received within the outer catheter, and wherein the occlusion device is fixed to the outer catheter such that the control system is configured to translate the inner catheter relative to the occlusion device as the liquid is released. Olson teaches further comprising: an outer catheter, wherein the catheter is an inner catheter received within the outer catheter, and wherein the occlusion device is fixed to the outer catheter such that the control system is configured to translate the inner catheter relative to the occlusion device as the liquid is released [0014]—describes the use of an inner and outer catheter and includes a discussion on a handle in communication with the outer catheter which is interpreted as being fixed to a catheter. This actuation handle controls relative displacement of the inner and outer catheters and further controls the occluding mechanism relative to both catheters to deliver fluids.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate translatable inner and outer catheter elements connected to the occlusion device as taught by Olson to deliver fluid within an anatomical vessel as suggested by Weitzner and Caplan, as Weitzner discusses the use of inner and outer catheters and controlling linear movement of these elements [Col 6, lines 51-61] and Caplan which discloses an elongate shaft with an insulator layer and outer surface to reduce heat transfer [0035] with Olson because Olson teaches the use of this configuration to control movement of the catheter portions and diametric expansion and collapse of the occlusion element in communication with these elements [0009].
Regarding Claim 46, Weitzner and Caplan are silent on further comprising: an outer catheter, wherein the catheter is an inner catheter received within the outer catheter, and wherein the occlusion device is mounted to the inner catheter such that the control system is configured to translate both the inner catheter and the occlusion device as the liquid is released. Olson teaches further comprising: an outer catheter, wherein the catheter is an inner catheter received within the outer catheter, and wherein the occlusion device is mounted to the inner catheter such that the control system is configured to translate both the inner catheter and the occlusion device as the liquid is released [0014]—describes the use of an inner and outer catheter and includes a discussion on a handle in communication with the outer catheter which is interpreted as being fixed to a catheter. This actuation handle controls relative displacement of the inner and outer catheters and further controls the occluding mechanism relative to both catheters to deliver fluids.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate translatable inner and outer catheter elements connected to the occlusion device as taught by Olson to deliver fluid within an anatomical vessel as suggested by Weitzner and Caplan, as Weitzner discusses the use of inner and outer catheters and controlling linear movement of these elements [Col 6, lines 51-61] and Caplan which discloses arms or a control rod that travels proximally though the shaft of the catheter [0191] with Olson because Olson teaches the use of this configuration to control movement of the catheter portions and diametric expansion and collapse of the occlusion element in communication with these elements [0009].
Regarding Claim 47, Weitzner teaches wherein the control system is further configured to increase a diameter of the occlusion device as the inner catheter and the occlusion device are moved proximally into larger diameter passageways [Col 9, lines 50-55]—describes the balloons as the occlusion device, expanding to a fixed position in a blood vessel and [Col 9, lines 58-61]—includes disclosure of the surgeon remotely operating this mechanism from a master station.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weitzner (U.S. 7955316) in view of Caplan (U.S. 20150148738), in further view of Panescu (WO 2019051251) and in even further view of Lupotti (U.S. 20160317844).
Regarding Claim 41, Weitzner, Caplan and Panescu are silent on wherein an outer surface of the catheter includes a groove sized to receive the fiber optic cable, wherein the fiber optic cable is housed within a second catheter. Lupotti teaches wherein an outer surface of the catheter includes a groove sized to receive the fiber optic cable, wherein the fiber optic cable is housed within a second catheter. [0027]—includes an optical fiber inserted through a port of a catheter, interpreted to be the groove receiving the cable, and the configuration of placing the optic fiber within the shaft of the second catheter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an outer surface of the catheter with a groove sized to receive fiber optic imaging cable and the cable housed within a second catheter as taught by Lupotti to deliver fluid within an anatomical vessel as suggested by Weitzner, Caplan, and Panescu as Weitzner discusses the use of feedback to provide for fine movement of the catheters in increments [Col 9, lines 25-30], Caplan which discloses the use of optical fibers to deliver laser energy [0048] and Panescu which specifically mentions the use of electrodes to determine conductive fluid conditions [0060] with Lupotti because Lupotti teaches the use of this element to assess the effect of ablation therapy on tissue in a body [0010].
Claim(s) 42, 43, 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weitzner (U.S. 7955316) in view of Caplan (U.S. 20150148738) and in further view of Dacey (U.S. 20100234793).
Regarding Claim 42, Weitzner and Caplan are silent on wherein the computer processor is configured to receive information including a diseased state of the anatomic lumen. Dacey teaches wherein the computer processor is configured to receive information including a diseased state of the anatomic lumen [0171].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize information collected during the procedure as taught by Dacey to view visual feedback to control surgical instruments as suggested by Weitzner and Caplan, as Weitzner discusses the difficulties of trying to manipulate surgical instruments during procedures even when viewing camera, scope, or imaging feeds [Col 1, lines 49-53] and Caplan which discloses using visualization devices and techniques to perform a diameter measurement [0127] with Dacey because Dacey teaches the use of this element to detect, treat or prevent an infection [0088].
Regarding Claim 43, Weitzner and Caplan are silent on wherein the computer processor is further configured to adjust at least one parameter based on the information. Dacey teaches wherein the computer processor is further configured to adjust at least one parameter based on the information [0397].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to collect information on the diseased state of the anatomic lumen via a computer processor to impart a prophylaxis as taught by Dacey to view visual feedback to control surgical instruments as suggested by Weitzner and Caplan, as Weitzner discusses the difficulties of trying to manipulate surgical instruments during procedures even when viewing camera, scope, or imaging feeds [Col 1, lines 49-53] and Caplan which discloses the controller including a processor [0159] with Dacey because Dacey teaches the use biological fluids delivered to the area to treat a pathological condition [0088].
Regarding Claim 44, Weitzner and Caplan are silent on wherein the at least one parameter includes temperature of the liquid, rate of release of the liquid, volume of released liquid, duration of liquid release, or pressure of the released liquid. Dacey teaches wherein the at least one parameter includes temperature of the liquid, rate of release of the liquid, volume of released liquid, duration of liquid release, or pressure of the released liquid [Fig. 26B, element 2632 (“parameter…one of a temperature”)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize information collected during the procedure such as temperature, rate, volume or duration as taught by Dacey to view visual feedback to control surgical instruments as suggested by Weitzner and Caplan, as Weitzner discusses the use of control means to operate and control the dispensing of liquids from the fluid sources [Col 12, lines 49-52] and Caplan which discloses the controller configured to adjust temperature, flow rate and or pressure [0161] with Dacey because Dacey teaches the use of monitoring temperature conditions to prevent thermal stress, rapid heating, cell death and hypothermic conditions to the indwelling area proximate to an implant [0131].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's comments filed 17 February 2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation are acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments filed 17 February 2026 with respect to the rejection of
claims 1 and 37 under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive, however, new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are presented above in light of the amendments for claims 1 and 37 citing Weitzner in view of Caplan, for claims 27-30, 33, 38-40 and 45 citing Weitzner in view of Caplan and in further view of Panescu, for claim 31 citing Weitzner in view of Caplan in further view of Panescu and in even further view of Wilkening, for claims 34 and 46-47 citing Weitzner in view of Caplan and in further view of Olson, for claim 41 citing Weitzner in view of Caplan, in further view of Panescu and in even further view off Lupotti, and for claims 42-44 citing Weitzner in view of Caplan and in further view of Dacey.
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 BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm 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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights