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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 17th, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims filed on November 17th, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-7, 9-24, 34, and 37- 49 are pending in the application. Claims 6-7, 9-10, 15- 16, and 34 are withdrawn for being drawn to an unelected group of claims and unelected species. The amendment to claims 48 and 49 overcomes the previous claim objections.
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.
The rejection of claim 22- 24, 37, 39- 41, 45- 47, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Devellian et al. (WO 2018/081466) in view of Oral et al. (US 9,011,551) and Heipl (WO 2015/189307) has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments, specifically Devellian does not teach wherein the plurality of contacts are positioned at a distal end of the electronics system, the plurality of contacts each comprises an atraumatic distal configuration configured to contact the tissue of the left atrial appendage.
The rejection of claim 38 under 35 U.S.C 103 over Devellian et al. (WO 2018/081466) in view of Oral et al. (US 9,011,551) and Heipl (WO 2015/189307) in further view of Bush et al. (EP 0479435), has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments, specifically Devellian does not teach wherein the plurality of contacts are positioned at a distal end of the electronics system, the plurality of contacts each comprises an atraumatic distal configuration configured to contact the tissue of the left atrial appendage.
The rejection of claims 42- 44 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Devellian et al. (WO 2018/081466) in view of Oral et al. (US 9,011,551) and Heipl (WO 2015/189307), in further view of Bahmanyar et al. (WO 2019/186101) has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments, specifically Devellian does not teach wherein the plurality of contacts are positioned at a distal end of the electronics system, the plurality of contacts each comprises an atraumatic distal configuration configured to contact the tissue of the left atrial appendage.
Claim(s) 1- 5, 11- 14, 17- 21, and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devellian et al. (WO 2018/081466) in view of O’Halloran et al. (EP 3636172).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Devellian (Devellian et al.) teaches a left atrial appendage occlusion device (Fig. 16)(abstract), comprising: a scaffold (foam body 1600) having a sidewall, a proximal end and a distal end (see annotated Fig. 16 below), and a self- expanding support (stent 1602)(Paragraph 0131) carried within the scaffold (Paragraph 0130), wherein the support defines a cavity therein (see annotated Fig. 16 below), wherein the proximal end of the scaffold has a proximal opening (hole 1606)(Paragraph 0131).
Regarding the scaffold being expandable as recited in claim 1, including the proximal opening as self-expandable as recited in claim 5, as Devellian teaches that the foam body and the stent “may have the same or similar features” to the “foam body 3002 and tubular body 3080” (Paragraph 0130) and then teaches that foam body 3002, including the proximal end, is expandable (Paragraph 0262 teaches that the device, including the foam body, has an expanded configuration, therefore the body is expandable.), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the foam body 1600, including its proximal end, would also be expandable to form the open configuration.
PNG
media_image1.png
618
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Devellian does not teach wherein the proximal opening being configured to receive an electronic system for delivery into the cavity, wherein the proximal end of the scaffold has an open configuration and a closed configuration, wherein in the closed configuration the proximal end forms an occlusive proximal end, and wherein the scaffold comprises a detachable proximal portion, wherein in the open configuration the detachable proximal portion is detached from the proximal end, and in the closed configuration the detachable proximal portion is attached to the proximal end, wherein the detachable proximal portion carries a frame configured to couple with a portion of the self- expandable support.
O’Halloran (O’Halloran et al.) teaches a left atrial appendage occlusion device (4)(Fig. 5)(abstract), comprising: a frame (cover 6) carried by a flap (9)(see Fig. 5 below) coupled to an implantable occlusion apparatus (4)(Paragraph 0052)(Paragraph 0059 teaches that the device in Fig. 5 is similar to the device 4 which is shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 7. Therefore, it would have the cover, the proximal opening, and the closure as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 7) having a proximal end with an opening (see annotated Fig. 5 below), wherein the proximal end of the cover has an open configuration, wherein in the open configuration the proximal end has a proximal opening configured to receive therethrough an electronic system for delivery (Paragraph 0059)(see Fig. 5) and a closed configuration, wherein in the closed configuration the proximal end forms an occlusive proximal end (see annotated Fig. 7 below)(Paragraphs 0015 and 0050).
PNG
media_image2.png
648
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
557
688
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device as taught by Devellian to have the open and closed configuration made by an closure over the proximal opening on the proximal end of the device, which has an open and closed configuration as taught by O’Halloran, since O’Halloran teaches that the closure fluidically isolates the LAA during a surgical procedure (Paragraph 0004). Furthermore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proximal opening as taught by Devellian to be configured to receive an electronic device, since O’Halloran teaches that the proximal opening allows for treatment in the heart by an electronic device (Paragraph 0004).
The combination does not teach wherein the scaffold comprises a detachable proximal portion, wherein in the open configuration the detachable proximal portion is detached from the proximal end, and in the closed configuration the detachable proximal portion is attached to the proximal end, wherein the detachable proximal portion carries a frame configured to couple with a portion of the self- expandable support.
However, it would have been obvious to modify a proximal portion of the scaffold to be detachably connected, as it making separable what was known to be formed from an integral part, which is an obvious engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04 V). Furthermore, this alteration would allow for an opening big enough to let in an electronic device. With the modified proximal portion, there would be an open configuration with the proximal portion detached and a closed configuration with the proximal portion attached, and the detachable proximal portion would carry the frame of the combination.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Devellian and O’Halloran makes obvious the device as discussed above. It is noted that the claims only require the proximal opening configured to receive an electronic system and do not in fact require the electronic system itself.
As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proximal opening as taught by Devellian to be configured to receive an electronic device, since O’Halloran teaches that the proximal opening allows for treatment in the heart by an electronic device (Paragraph 0004). O’Halloran further teaches that the proximal opening is configured to allow a pacing system comprising a pace generator through (Paragraph 0059).
Regarding claim 4, Devellian and O’Halloran makes obvious the device as discussed above. It is noted that the claims only require the proximal opening configured to receive an electronic system and do not in fact require the electronic system itself.
As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proximal opening as taught by Devellian to be configured to receive an electronic device, since O’Halloran teaches that the proximal opening allows for treatment in the heart by an electronic device (Paragraph 0004). O’Halloran further teaches wherein the proximal opening is configured to allow an electronic system that comprises a sensor (energy harvesting module 60) attached to a support (Paragraph 0059).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Devellian and O’Halloran makes obvious the device as discussed above.
The combination does not teach wherein the support comprises a detachable proximal segment attached to a distal cylindrical portion of the support.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device as taught by Devellian to have the open and closed configuration made by an closure over the proximal opening on the proximal end of the device, which has an open and closed configuration as taught by O’Halloran, since O’Halloran teaches that the closure fluidically isolates the LAA during a surgical procedure (Paragraph 0004). As the closure would extend over the proximal opening of the device and therefore over the distal cylindrical portion of the support (see annotated Fig. 16 of Devellian below) and since O’ Halloran teaches that the closure is self-closing, it is therefore attached to the cylindrical portion of the support.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to further modify this closure on the support to be detachable, as it making separable what was known to be formed from an integral part, which is an obvious engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04 V).
Regarding wherein in the open configuration the detachable proximal segment is removed to define an opening in a proximal end of the cylindrical portion that is configured to receive the electronic system therethrough, O’Halloran teaches wherein the closure opens and closes over the proximal opening of the proximal end of the device (Paragraph 0015). Therefore, when the segment of the combination is detached, an opening is defined in a proximal end of the cylindrical portion. For the combination as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proximal opening as taught by Devellian to be configured to receive an electronic device, since O’Halloran teaches that the proximal opening allows for treatment in the heart by an electronic device (Paragraph 0004), therefore it would have been obvious to have the opening of the cylindrical portion be configured to receive the electronic system, as the cylindrical portion of the support is within the scaffold.
PNG
media_image4.png
604
763
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Devellian and O’Halloran makes obvious the device as discussed above. As the claims only require the proximal opening as configured to receive an electronic system, wherein the electronic system is not positively claimed, claim 13 thus only require the proximal opening as configured to receive an electronic system which is delivered by a guidewire.
As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proximal opening as taught by Devellian to be configured to receive an electronic device, since O’Halloran teaches that the proximal opening allows for treatment in the heart by an electronic device (Paragraph 0004). O’Halloran further teaches wherein the proximal opening is configured to receive an electronic system that is configured to be delivered via a guidewire into the cavity (Since the electrical lead 61 is taught to extend from the device to the “energy harvesters” (Paragraph 0059), and when deployed would guide the energy harvesters to a designated location, the electrical lead is considered a guidewire.).
Regarding claim 14, Devellian and O’Halloran makes obvious the device as discussed above.
Devellian further teaches wherein the sidewall provides a cushion between the support and a wall of the left atrial appendage (Paragraph 0130 teaches that the foam body, which the sidewall is a part of, acts as a cushion between the support and the left atrial appendage.).
Regarding wherein the scaffold has a tubular body and the sidewall comprises a compressible open cell foam, as Devellian teaches that the foam body and the stent “may have the same or similar features” to the “foam body 3002 and tubular body 3080” (Paragraph 0130) and then teaches that foam body 3002 and therefore the sidewall is tubular (Paragraph 0271), a compressible foam (Paragraph 0263), and is an open cell foam due to the presence of pores (Paragraph 0264).
Regarding claim 17, Devellian and O’Halloran makes obvious the device as discussed above.
Devellian further teaches wherein the support (stent 1602) comprises a plurality of struts forming a plurality of apexes (Paragraph 0131).
Regarding claim 18, Devellian and O’Halloran makes obvious the device as discussed above.
The combination does not teach wherein the support (stent 1602) comprises a plurality of anchors configured to engage tissue of the left atrial appendage.
Devellian teaches in a separate embodiment, a similar left atrial appendage device (10)(Figs. 28A- Fig. 28D)(Paragraph 0164-0169) with a support (101) that comprises a plurality of anchors (120) configured to engage tissue of the left atrial appendage (Paragraph 0165).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the support as taught by the combination to have a plurality of anchors as taught by the second embodiment of Devellian, since the anchors secure the device within the left atrial appendage.
Regarding claim 19, Devellian and O’Halloran makes obvious the device as discussed above.
Regarding wherein in the closed configuration, the proximal end of the scaffold comprises a foam end wall, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device as taught by Devellian to have the open and closed configuration made by an closure over the proximal opening on the proximal end of the device, which has an open and closed configuration as taught by O’Halloran, since O’Halloran teaches that the closure fluidically isolates the LAA during a surgical procedure (Paragraph 0004). Therefore, in adding a closure to the proximal end of the scaffold, which is taught to be made of foam (Paragraph 0130), it would be obvious that the closure would also be made of foam and when the closure is positioned over the proximal opening, a foam end wall would be formed.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Devellian and O’Halloran makes obvious the device as discussed above.
Devellian further teaches the device further comprising a cover comprising ePTFE on the proximal end of the device (Paragraph 0130)(see annotated Fig. 16 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
618
744
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 48, Devellian and O’Halloran makes obvious the device as discussed above.
Regarding, wherein the detachable proximal segment of the support and the detachable proximal portion of the scaffold form a detachable cover, wherein in the open configuration the detachable cover is detached from the proximal end, and in the closed configuration the detachable cover is attached to the proximal end, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to modify a proximal portion of the scaffold to be detachably connected, as it making separable what was known to be formed from an integral part, which is an obvious engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04 V) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device as taught by Devellian to have the open and closed configuration made by an closure over the proximal opening on the proximal end of the device, which has an open and closed configuration as taught by O’Halloran, since O’Halloran teaches that the closure fluidically isolates the LAA during a surgical procedure (Paragraph 0004) and further obvious to modify the closure to be detachable. As both the closure and the proximal portion of the scaffold are at the proximal end of the device and cover an opening within the device, they are considered a detachable cover. Furthermore, when the closure and the proximal portion of the scaffold are removed, there is an open configuration and when the closure and the proximal portion are attached to the proximal end of the device, there is a closed configuration.
Claim(s) 22- 24, 37, 39- 41, 45- 47, and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devellian et al. (WO 2018/081466) in view of Oral et al. (US 9,011,551), Heipl (WO 2015/189307), and Van Tassel et al. (US 6,551,303).
Regarding claims 22 and 41, Devellian (Devellian et al.) teaches a left atrial appendage occlusion device (Fig. 16)(abstract), comprising: a scaffold (foam body 1600) having a sidewall, a proximal end and a distal end (see annotated Fig. 16 below), and a self- expanding support (stent 1602)(Paragraph 0131) carried within the scaffold (Paragraph 0130), wherein the support defines a cavity therein (see annotated Fig. 16 below), wherein the proximal end of the scaffold has a proximal opening (1606)(Paragraph 0131).
Regarding the scaffold being expandable, as Devellian teaches that the foam body and the stent “may have the same or similar features” to the “foam body 3002 and tubular body 3080” (Paragraph 0130) and then teaches that foam body 3002 is expandable (Paragraph 0262 teaches that the device, including the foam body, has an expanded configuration, therefore the body is expandable.), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the foam body 1600 would also be expandable.
PNG
media_image1.png
618
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Devellian does not teach the self-expandable support comprising a proximal hub and a plurality of struts extending distally from the proximal hub, an electronic system comprising a plurality of contacts configured to contact tissue of the left atrial appendage and stabilize the electronic system after implantation of the electronic system in the left atrial appendage, wherein the plurality of contacts are positioned at a distal end of the electronics system, the plurality of contacts each comprising an atraumatic distal configuration configured to contact the tissue of the left atrial appendage; and a coiled wire coupling the self-expandable support and the electronic system, the coiled wire being directly coupled to the proximal hub at a first end and directly coupled to the electronic system at a second end, wherein the electronic system is configured to be positioned at least partially distal to the left atrial appendage occlusion device.
Devellian teaches in a separate embodiment, a similar left atrial appendage device (1020)(Figs. 45A- 45D)(Paragraphs 0198- 0201) with a support (internal support structure 1032) comprising a proximal hub (central hub 1046) and a plurality of struts (1038) extending distally from the proximal hub (see annotated Fig. 45A below).
PNG
media_image6.png
232
526
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the support as taught by the combination to have a proximal hub and a plurality of struts as taught by the second embodiment of Devellian for the purpose of providing an internal support. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one support for another because both supports are disclosed as equivalent structures for providing internal support within the implant and aiding in the expansion of the implant (Devellian, Paragraphs 0131 and 0200) and substitution of one for the other would have resulted in the predictable result of an implant that is supported while inserted within a body and which is aided in expansion. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Oral (Oral et al.) teaches a similar left atrial appendage occlusion device (194)(Fig. 3C)(abstract) with a support (304) and an electronic system (transponder unit 106) comprising a plurality of contacts (conductive struts 302) configured to contact tissue of the left atrial appendage and stabilize the electronic system after implantation of the electronic system in the left atrial appendage (Column 5, Lines 57- 64), a mainstay strut (306) coupling the support and the electronic system (Column 8, Lines 11- 14), wherein the electronic system is configured to be positioned at least partially distal to the left atrial appendage occlusion device (see annotated Fig. 3C below).
PNG
media_image7.png
841
731
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device as taught by Devellian to have the electronic system as taught by Oral, in order to monitor the left atrial appendage and to administer treatment to the LAA (Column 1, Lines 15- 17).
The combination of Devellian and Oral does not teach a coiled wire coupling the self-expandable support and the electronic system, the coiled wire being directly coupled to the proximal hub at a first end and directly coupled to the electronic system at a second end or wherein the plurality of contacts are positioned at a distal end of the electronics system, the plurality of contacts each comprising an atraumatic distal configuration configured to contact the tissue of the left atrial appendage.
Heipl teaches a similar left atrial appendage occlusion device (100)(Fig. 4b) with a support and an anchor (118)(On Page 4, Lines 1-4, Heipl teaches that Fig. 4b shows the device with only the distal anchoring portion shown, however, it would have been obvious that the device shown in Fig. 4b would have a support as shown in Fig. 1), with a coiled wire that is a coiled spring (spring 109) coupling the support and the anchor (Page 7, Lines 31- 35 and Page 9, Lines 36- 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device as taught by the combination to have a coiled wire coupling the self-expandable support and the electronic system as taught by Heipl, since Heipl teaches that the coiled wire provides a force to draw the proximal portion further into the left atrial appendage (Page 9, Lines 27- 35).
Regarding the coiled wire being directly coupled to the proximal hub at a first end and directly coupled to the electronic system at a second end, as the combination teaches that the coiled wire is coupled to the center of the support device (Oral, see annotated Fig. 3D below), and the proximal hub of Devellian is the center of the support device, with the struts surrounding a cavity (Devellian, see annotated Fig. 45A below), the coiled wire would be directly coupled to the proximal hub at a first end. Furthermore, the combination teaches that the coiled wire is directly coupled to the electronic system at a second end (Oral, see annotated Fig. 3D below).
PNG
media_image8.png
527
588
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
232
526
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The combination does not teach wherein the plurality of contacts are positioned at a distal end of the electronics system, the plurality of contacts each comprising an atraumatic distal configuration configured to contact the tissue of the left atrial appendage.
Van Tassel (Van Tassel et al.) teaches a left atrial appendage occlusion device (40)(Fig. 5) and a plurality of prongs (50) that have atraumatic bulbs (55) on their tips (Column 6, Lines 28- 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plurality of contacts of the combination to have an atraumatic distal configuration such as an atraumatic bulb as taught by Van Tassel, since Van Tassel teaches that the atraumatic bulbs “will not perforate the left atrial appendage” (Column 6, Lines 33- 35) and therefore prevent damage to the left atrial appendage.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Devellian, Oral, Heipl and Van Tassel make obvious the device with the electronic system with a plurality of contacts and a coiled wire as discussed above.
The combination further teaches wherein the electronic system comprises a pacing system (As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device as taught by Devellian to have the electronic system as taught by Oral, in order to monitor the left atrial appendage and to administer treatment to the LAA. Oral further teaches in Column 5, Lines 8- 26 that the transponder unit can be multi-mode and include a treatment stage that applies an electrical pulse to the heart, and therefore paces it.), wherein the plurality of contacts are configured to electrically connect the pacing system to the tissue of the left atrial appendage (As Oral teaches that the plurality of contacts are conductive (Column 5, Lines 57- 61), it would be obvious that the contacts would electrical connect the pacing system to the tissue.).
Regarding claim 37, Devellian, Oral, Heipl and Van Tassel make obvious the device with the electronic system with a plurality of contacts and a coiled wire as discussed above.
As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device as taught by Devellian to have the electronic system as taught by Oral, in order to monitor the left atrial appendage and to administer treatment to the LAA (Column 1, Lines 15- 17) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plurality of contacts of the combination to have an atraumatic distal configuration such as an atraumatic bulb as taught by Van Tassel, since Van Tassel teaches that the atraumatic bulbs “will not perforate the left atrial appendage” (Column 6, Lines 33- 35) and therefore prevent damage to the left atrial appendage.
Regarding wherein the plurality of contacts comprise one or more rounded edges configured to contact the tissue of the left atrial appendage, for the combination, the device would have the contacts as taught by Oral with the atraumatic ends that are rounded as taught by Van Tassel, therefore the plurality of contacts would have rounded edges that contact the tissue of the left atrial appendage (see annotated Fig. 7 of Oral below)(Column 6, Lines 45- 57 of Van Tassel).
PNG
media_image10.png
791
687
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 39, Devellian, Oral, Heipl and Van Tassel make obvious the device with the electronic system with a plurality of contacts and a coiled wire as discussed above.
The combination further teaches wherein the plurality of contacts are collapsible, the plurality of contacts configured to be delivered in a collapsed configuration in a delivery catheter (Oral, Column 8, Lines 11- 14)(As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device as taught by Devellian to have the electronic system as taught by Oral, in order to monitor the left atrial appendage and to administer treatment to the LAA. It would have been further obvious to use the disclosed delivery method, including the collapsed configuration, in order to successfully deliver the device of Oral).
Regarding claim 40, Devellian, Oral, Heipl and Van Tassel make obvious the device with the electronic system with a plurality of contacts and a coiled wire as discussed above.
The combination further teaches wherein the electronic system comprises a pressure sensor (transducer 106)(Oral, Column 3, Lines 34- 40 and Column 5, Lines 8- 26) connected to the coiled wire (Oral, Column 8, Lines 11- 14)(As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device as taught by Devellian to have the electronic system as taught by Oral, in order to monitor the left atrial appendage and to administer treatment to the LAA.).
Regarding claim 45, Devellian, Oral, Heipl and Van Tassel make obvious the device with the electronic system with a plurality of contacts and a coiled wire as discussed above.
Devellian further teaches wherein the support comprises a plurality of struts forming a plurality of apexes (Paragraph 0131).
Regarding claim 46, Devellian, Oral, Heipl and Van Tassel make obvious the device with the electronic system with a plurality of contacts and a coiled wire as discussed above.
The combination does not teach wherein the support comprises a plurality of anchors configured to engage tissue of the left atrial appendage.
Devellian teaches in a separate embodiment, a similar left atrial appendage device (10)(Figs. 28A- Fig. 28D)(Paragraph 0164-0169) with a support (101) that comprises a plurality of anchors (120) configured to engage tissue of the left atrial appendage (Paragraph 0165).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the support as taught by the combination to have a plurality of anchors as taught by the second embodiment of Devellian, since the anchors secure the device within the left atrial appendage.
Regarding claim 47, Devellian, Oral, Heipl and Van Tassel make obvious the device with the electronic system with a plurality of contacts and a coiled wire as discussed above.
Devellian further teaches wherein the sidewall provides a cushion between the support and a wall of the left atrial appendage (Paragraph 0130 teaches that the foam body, which the sidewall is a part of, acts as a cushion between the support and the left atrial appendage.).
Regarding wherein the scaffold has a tubular body and the sidewall comprises a compressible open cell foam, as Devellian teaches that the foam body and the stent “may have the same or similar features” to the “foam body 3002 and tubular body 3080” (Paragraph 0130) and then teaches that foam body 3002 and therefore the sidewall is tubular (Paragraph 0271), a compressible foam (Paragraph 0263), and is an open cell foam due to the presence of pores (Paragraph 0264).
Regarding claim 49, Devellian, Oral, Heipl and Van Tassel make obvious the device with the electronic system with a plurality of contacts and a coiled wire as discussed above.
Regarding wherein the plurality of contacts are position at a distal end of the electronics system, the plurality of contacts each comprising an atraumatic distal configuration configured to contact the tissue of the left atrial appendage, the combination teaches that the plurality of contacts are positioned at a proximal end of the electronics system (see annotated Fig. 3D below), however it would have been obvious to modify the location of the plurality of contacts as taught by the combination to be at a distal end of the electronics system, since it has been held that a mere reversal of parts is an obvious modification of the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A)).
PNG
media_image11.png
527
588
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devellian et al. (WO 2018/081466) in view of Oral et al. (US 9,011,551), Heipl (WO 2015/189307), and Van Tassel et al. (US 6,551,303), as applied to claim 22 above, in further view of Bush et al. (EP 0479435).
Regarding claim 38, Devellian, Oral, Heipl, and Van Tassel make obvious the device with the electronic system with a plurality of contacts and a coiled wire as discussed above.
The combination does not teach wherein the plurality of contacts comprise one or more loops configured to contact the tissue of the left atrial appendage.
Bush (Bush et al.) teaches an implantable device (10)(Fig. 1) in the heart (Column 1, Lines 15- 22; Column 2, Lines 21- 24; Column 5, Lines 10- 17) comprising an electronic system (electronic connector 16), a plurality of contacts (curvilinear electrodes 18) wherein the plurality of contacts comprise one or more loops (Column 7, Lines 6- 9) configured to contact tissue (Column 5, Lines 10- 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the plurality of contacts as taught by the combination to be loops as taught by Bush, since Bush teaches that this shape provides adequate surface area for defibrillation (Column 2, Lines 13- 17).
Claim(s) 42- 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devellian et al. (WO 2018/081466) in view of Oral et al. (US 9,011,551), Heipl (WO 2015/189307), and Van Tassel et al. (US 6,551,303), as applied to claim 22 above, in further view of Bahmanyar et al. (WO 2019/186101).
Regarding claims 42, 43, and 44, Devellian, Oral, Heipl, and Van Tassel make obvious the device with the electronic system with a plurality of contacts and a coiled wire as discussed above.
The combination further teaches that the conductive struts (302) is able to sense from the walls of the left atrial appendage (Column , Lines 57- 60) and that the conductive struts are connects to the transponder through the wire (see Fig. 3C).
The combination does not teach the device further comprising (claim 42) a pressure transducer positioned to measure left atrial pressure, (claim 43) wherein the pressure transducer is electronically connected to the electronic system via the coiled wire, and (claim 44) wherein the pressure transducer comprises an antenna extending proximally from a proximal end of the left atrial appendage occlusion device.
Bahmanyar (Bahmanyar et al.) teaches a similar device (10)(Fig. 1) for implantation in the heart (abstract) with a support (6, 8)(Page 9, Lines 16- 17), a casing (2), a pressure transducer (4, Page 8, Lines 25- 30) (Bahmanyar teaches on Page 16, Lines 11- 27 that the pressure sensor can be a pressure transducer) positioned to measure left atrial pressure (Page 1, Line 10) which comprises an antenna (16) extending proximally from a proximal end of the device (Page 10, Lines 14- 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pressure sensor of the combination to be the pressure transducer and antenna as taught by Bahmanyar for the purpose of measuring pressure within the heart. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the pressure sensor for the pressure transducer and antenna because both are disclosed as equivalent structures for measuring pressure within the heart (Oral, Column 3, Lines 34- 40; Bahmanyar, Page 1, Line 10) and substitution of one for the other would have resulted in the predictable result of measuring and conveying the pressure that is within the heart. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 17th, 2025, regarding the rejection of claims 1-5, 11- 14, 17- 21, and 48 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Devellian et al. (WO 2018/081466) in view of O’Halloran et al. (EP 3636172) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed above, O’Halloran teaches a frame (cover 6) carried by a flap (9)(see Fig. 5 below) coupled to an implantable occlusion apparatus (4)(Paragraph 0052)(Paragraph 0059 teaches that the device in Fig. 5 is similar to the device 4 which is shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 7. Therefore, it would have the cover, the proximal opening, and the closure as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 7), and it would have been obvious to modify a proximal portion of the scaffold to be detachably connected, as it making separable what was known to be formed from an integral part, which is an obvious engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04 V). Furthermore, this alteration would allow for an opening big enough to let in an electronic device and with the modified proximal portion, there would be an open configuration with the proximal portion detached and a closed configuration with the proximal portion attached, and the detachable proximal portion would carry the frame of the combination. Therefore, the combination teaches the newly added claim limitation.
Applicant’s arguments filed November 17th, 2025, regarding the rejection of claims 22-24, 37, 39-41, 45- 47, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Devellian in view of Oral et al. (US 9,011,551) and Heipl (WO 2015/189307), the rejection of claim 38 under 35 U.S.C 103 over Devellian in view of Oral and Heipl in further view of Bush et al. (EP 0479435), and the rejection of claims 42- 44 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Devellian in view of Oral and Heipl, in further view of Bahmanyar et al. (WO 2019/186101) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY R. RIVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at (571) 272- 4696. 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.
/L.R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/TAN-UYEN T HO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771