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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 10/18/2024. As directed by the amendment: claims 3-5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 21 and 25 have been amended, no additional claims have been cancelled and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-14 and 21-26 are presently pending in this application, and currently examined in the Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the endovascular apparatus comprising a pair of interconnected hooks, wherein each hook comprises a first longitudinal portion, and the first longitudinal portion of each hook comprises a partial twist (claim 5), and the endovascular apparatus comprising a retriever, wherein the retriever comprises first and second portions of the wall in contact with each other and joined together by a weld (claim 25) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 5 and 25 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.
Regarding claim 5, which sets forth the parameter of “the first longitudinal portion of each hook comprises a partial twist” (emphasis added); however, this parameter was never mentioned in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, the originally filed specification never states the longitudinal portion, or any portion for that matter, of each hook “comprises” a partial twist. It is to be noted that the originally filed specification does state that the longitudinal portions/each hook “may be bent or twisted”, or “is partially twisted”, or “thus become twisted as a result of this bending and folding action”; however, it is never stated that the longitudinal portions/each hook “comprises a partial twist”.
Regarding claim 25, which sets forth the parameter of “the retriever comprises first and second portions of the wall in contact with each other and joined together by a weld”; however, this parameter was never mentioned in the originally filed disclosure.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, which sets forth the parameter of “the first longitudinal portion of each hook comprises a partial twist” (emphasis added); however, this parameter is found to be confusing since it is not clear if the final structure of the endovascular device actually has a structure of a visible/distinct twist in the first longitudinal portion of each hook, or if the partial twist is a product-by-process step taken in the construction/making of the final structure of the endovascular device. Furthermore, it is also unclear what exactly, structurally, is meant by a “partial twist”; specifically, what visible/distinct structure would actually be needed to qualify as the first longitudinal portion comprising a “partial twist”. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be apprised of the scope of the invention, thereby rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 25, which sets forth the parameter of “the retriever comprises first and second portions of the wall in contact with each other and joined together by a weld”; however, this parameter is found to be confusing for multiple reasons. Firstly, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the retriever comprises first and second portions of the wall”; specifically, what exactly are these different portions of the wall and how is the retriever part of/comprise any portion of the wall, does this mean the retriever is part of the wall. Secondly, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “in contact with each other”; are the first and second portions of the wall in contact with each other, or is the retriever in contact with the wall and/or one or both of the first and second portions, or some other completely different type of structure/contacting. Finally, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “joined together” by a weld; what exactly is joined together, the first and second wall portions, or the retriever to the wall portions, or something else completely different. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be apprised of the scope of the invention, thereby rendering the claim indefinite.
Examiner’s Notes
It is to be noted that in device/apparatus claims only the claimed structure of the final device bears patentable weight; intended use/functional language and/or method of manufacturing is considered to the extent that it further defines the claimed structure of the final device (see MPEP 2113 & 2114).
It is further to be noted that the “snare”, mentioned on lines 1 and 6 of claim 1, is not part of the claimed invention of “An endovascular apparatus”, nor is it actively claimed. Thus, the limitation of the snare will be considered to the extent that it further defines the structure of the final device of the claimed invention of an endovascular apparatus.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant(s) fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 23, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wood et al. (US PG Pub. 2011/0071613), as previously disclosed, hereinafter Wood.
Regarding claims 1 and 23, Wood discloses an endovascular apparatus (72), illustrated in Figure 10, adapted for retrieval using a snare, comprising a body (84) having a wall forming a lumen (80), the wall comprising a material/wire having a thickness, and further having a pair of interconnected hooks (H1 & H2), each hook of the pair of interconnected hooks having a first longitudinal portion (76) extending from and unitarily formed with the wall and a second portion (78) connected to the first longitudinal portion (76), the second portions of the interconnected hooks together forming a receiver (bent part of portion 78) adapted to receive the snare, each hook (H1 & H2) is J-shaped and formed of the material/wire of the wall having the thickness, illustrated in Figure 10 and modified figure 10, below ([0037] – to clarify, there are two wire portions forming two interconnected J-shaped hooks H1 & H2, each J-shaped hook comprises a first longitudinal portion 76 and a second portion 78 connected to the first longitudinal portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
340
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Wood discloses the endovascular apparatus of claim 1, wherein the pair of interconnected hooks (H1 & H2) radially project into a longitudinal path of the lumen (80) and include a radially innermost portion (R) offset from a central portion of the body, illustrated in Figure 10 and modified figure 10, above ([0035], Lines 14-16 & [0037], specifically Lines 8-9).
Regarding claim 5, Wood discloses the endovascular apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first longitudinal portion (76) of each hook (H1 & H2) comprises a partial twist/bend (at portion T) and the second portion (78) projects radially inward from the first longitudinal portion (76), illustrated in Figure 10 and modified figure 10, above ([0037] – to clarify, the terms “bent” and “twisted” seem to be used interchangeably according to the originally filed disclosure of the current application at hand; specifically, paragraph [007] of the originally filed specification of the current application at hand states the first longitudinal portions “may be bent or twisted”, and paragraph [0033] of the originally filed specification of the current application at hand states “hooks 18a, 18b may then be bent” and “the hooks 18a, 18b thus become twisted as a result of this bending and folding action”, i.e. the “twist” is due to bending; furthermore, the definition of the word “twist”, according to the Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries is, “to bend or turn something into a particular shape”; thus, in the instant case, the bent portion T, of the endovascular apparatus of Wood, results in each hook comprising a partial twist). Moreover, it seems the parameter of each hook comprising a “partial twist” is a product-by-process parameter, and it is important to keep in mind that that though a product-by-process parameter/claim is limited by and defined by a/the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production; and the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113). Thus, in the instant case, the apparatus of Wood meets all the structural limitations of the final product/apparatus set forth in the claim, i.e. the second portion (78) projecting radially inward from the first longitudinal portion (76), illustrated in Figure 10, and is capable of performing the intended use of being an apparatus adapted for retrieval; therefore, Wood reads on the claim.
Regarding claim 6, Wood discloses the endovascular apparatus of claim 1, wherein the body (64) includes an elongated spine connected to the pair of interconnected hooks (H1 & H2) as a single unitary structure, illustrated in Figure 10 and modified figure 10, above ([0037], specifically Lines 3-7 & 12-16 & [0041], Lines 1-2 – to clarify the “elongated spine” is considered to be the material/wire which the endovascular apparatus is made of, and it is stated that the entire endovascular apparatus is made from a single/unitary wire; therefore the elongated spine, i.e. the material/wire of the body portion, which is connected to the pair of interconnected hooks H1 & H2, are all a single unitary structure).
Regarding claim 7, Wood discloses the endovascular apparatus of claim 1, wherein the endovascular apparatus (72) comprises a filter, illustrated in Figure 10 (to clarify, apparatus 72 is considered a filter due to its mesh structure, which would allow for filtration of particles such as clots/plaque; it is to be noted that no additional physical/structural limitations are set forth that would need to be met in order for the device to be considered a filter, and apparatus 72 meets all the structural limitations as set forth in the claim(s), furthermore, there is nothing disclosed in Wood that would prevent the structure of the apparatus from being used as a filter, and therefore meets the claim limitation).
Regarding claims 8 and 24, Wood discloses an endovascular apparatus (72), illustrated in Figure 10, comprising a body (84) having a wall forming a lumen (80) and a hook (74) radially projecting into a longitudinal path of the lumen (80) and having a radially innermost portion (R) offset from a central portion of the lumen (80), wherein the hook (74) is J-shaped, illustrated in Figure 10 and modified figure 10, above ([0035], Lines 14-16 & [0037]).
Regarding claim 10, Wood discloses the endovascular apparatus of claim 8, wherein the body (84) includes an elongated spine connected to the hook (74), illustrated in Figure 10 ([0037], specifically Lines 3-7 & 12-16 & [0041], Lines 1-2 – to clarify the “elongated spine” is considered to be the material/wire which the body 84 of the endovascular apparatus is made of, and it is stated that the entire endovascular apparatus is made from a single/unitary wire; therefore the elongated spine, i.e. the material/wire of the body, is connected to the hook 74).
Regarding claim 11, Wood discloses an endovascular apparatus (72), illustrated in Figure 10, comprising a body (84) comprising a wall with a thickness (specifically the thickness of the wall is the thickness of the material/wire forming the wall/body) and forming a lumen (80), the body having a retriever (74) formed of a thickness that is double the thickness of the wall, illustrated in Figure 10 ([0037] – to clarify, the body 84 is formed of a material/wire having a single thickness, i.e. the thickness of the wire, and the retriever 74 is formed of a pair/two interconnected wire portions; thus, the retriever 74 has “a thickness that is double the thickness of the wall”).
Regarding claim 13, Wood discloses the endovascular apparatus of claim 11, wherein the retriever (74) is offset from a central portion of the body (84), illustrated in Figure 10.
Regarding claim 14, Wood discloses the endovascular apparatus of claim 11, wherein the body (84) comprises a spine connected to the retriever (74) to form a single unitary structure, illustrated in Figure 10 ([0037], specifically Lines 3-7 & 12-16 & [0041], Lines 1-2 – to clarify the “elongated spine” is considered to be the material/wire which the body 84 of the endovascular apparatus is made of, and it is stated that the entire endovascular apparatus is made from a single/unitary wire; therefore the elongated spine, i.e. the material/wire of the body portion, which is connected to retriever 74 is all a single unitary structure).
Regarding claim 26, Wood discloses the endovascular apparatus of claim 11, wherein the body comprises a single piece of tubular material ([0041], Lines 1-2 & [0131], Lines 22-23).
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.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood as applied to claims 1, 8 and 11 above, and further in view of Jordan et al. (US PG Pub. 2006/0190075), as previously disclosed, hereinafter Jordan.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Wood discloses the endovascular apparatus of claim 1, wherein the pair of interconnected hooks (H1 & H2) are at least partially connected together (connected at the rounded tip end of second portion 78) in a side-by-side fashion so as to form a single hook (74) having a thickness that is double the thickness of the wall material, illustrated in Figure 10 and modified figure 10, above (to clarify, the two J-shaped hooks H1 & H2 are aligned in “a side-by-side fashion”, i.e. aligned next to one another; the two J-shaped hooks H1 & H2 are connected together/to one another at the rounded tip end of second portion 78, thereby forming a single hook, i.e. a single hook since there is no break or disconnect between the pair of interconnected hooks H1 & H2; and the “single hook” has “a thickness that is double the thickness of the wall material” since each of the interconnected hooks H1 & H2 are individually made/consist of the material/wire which forms the wall, and the single hook is formed of two/a pair of the interconnected hooks H1 & H2, thereby having a thickness that is double); but does not specifically disclosed that the pair of interconnected hooks are connected by a bond comprising a weld.
However, Jordan teaches endovascular apparatus, in the same field of endeavor, comprising a body (10) and a retrieval member (30) attached to the body, illustrated in Figure 16, wherein the two wires forming the retrieval member (30) are welded together to form a unitary structure ([0052], Lines 1-5).
In view of the teachings of Jordan, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the interconnected hooks, of the endovascular apparatus of Wood, to be connected by a bond, such as a weld, in order to form a unitary structure, as taught by Jordan; which results in the pair of interconnected hooks having a thickness that is double the thickness of the wall material.
Regarding claim 9, Wood discloses the endovascular apparatus of claim 8, wherein the hook (74) comprises a pair of hook portions (H1 & H2) each having the same thickness as the wall and connected together (at the rounded tip end of second portion 78), illustrated in Figure 10 and modified figure 10, above ([0037] – to clarify, since each hook portion H1 & H2 is formed of the wire/material which forms the wall/body, thus, each hook portion has “the same thickness as the wall”); but does not specifically disclose that the pair of hook portions are connected by a bond.
However, Jordan teaches endovascular apparatus, in the same field of endeavor, comprising a body (10) and a retrieval member (30) attached to the body, illustrated in Figure 16, wherein the two wires forming the retrieval member (30) are bonded, via a weld, together to form a unitary structure ([0052], Lines 1-5).
In view of the teachings of Jordan, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the connected pair of hooks, of the endovascular apparatus of Wood, to be connected by a bond, such as a weld, in order to form a unitary structure, as taught by Jordan.
Regarding claim 12, Wood discloses the endovascular apparatus of claim 11, wherein the retriever (74) comprises a pair of J-shaped hooks (H1 & H2) connected together (at the rounded tip end of second portion 78) and having an open end (bent portion of second portion 78) facing in a distal direction, illustrated in Figure 10 and modified figure 10 ([0037]), above; but does not specifically disclose that the pair of J-shaped hooks are connected by a bond.
However, Jordan teaches endovascular apparatus, in the same field of endeavor, comprising a body (10) and a retrieval member (30) attached to the body, illustrated in Figure 16, wherein the two wires forming the retrieval member (30) are bonded, via a weld, together to form a unitary structure ([0052], Lines 1-5).
In view of the teachings of Jordan, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the connected pair of J-shaped hooks, of the endovascular apparatus of Wood, to be connected by a bond, such as a weld, in order to form a unitary structure, as taught by Jordan.
Regarding claim 25, Wood discloses the endovascular apparatus of claim 11, wherein the retriever (74) comprises first and second portions (H1 & H2), attached/unitary with the wall, and in contact with each other (at the rounded tip end of second portion 78), illustrated in Figure 10 and modified figure 10, above ([0037]); but does not specifically disclose that the first and second portions are joined together by a weld.
However, Jordan teaches endovascular apparatus, in the same field of endeavor, comprising a body (10) and a retrieval member (30) attached to the body, illustrated in Figure 16, wherein the two wires forming the retrieval member (30) are welded together to form a unitary structure ([0052], Lines 1-5).
In view of the teachings of Jordan, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the first and second portions, of the retriever of the endovascular apparatus of Wood, to be welded together, in order to form a unitary structure, as taught by Jordan.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood.
Regarding claim 22, Wood discloses the endovascular apparatus of claim 1, wherein Wood states that the tubular apparatus/stent may be tapered and/or flared at the end ([0129], Lines 1-4); and thus, it would have been obvious to one have ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the taper and/or flared end would result in the end, of the apparatus/stent, forming an angle with a horizontal axis, as claimed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 and 21-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,285,027. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims set forth an endovascular apparatus comprising a body having a wall, with a thickness, and a lumen; a pair of interconnected hooks, each hook having a first longitudinal portion extending from and unitarily formed with the wall and a second portion connected to the first longitudinal portion, the second portion of the interconnected hooks together forming a receiver adapted to receive a snare, and each hook being formed of a thickness that is double the thickness of the wall.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and overcomes the Double Patenting Rejection, set forth above, by filing an e-Terminal Disclaimer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/18/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the rejections of claims 1, 4-6, 8, 11 and 12 as being anticipated by the prior art of Wood; specifically that Wood does not disclose or teach: regarding claim 1, the apparatus comprising “a pair of interconnected hooks”; regarding claim 4, that “the hooks radially project into a path of the lumen; regarding claim 5, that “the first longitudinal portion of each hook is partially twisted”; regarding claim 6, “the body includes an elongated spine connected to the pair of interconnected hooks as a single unitary structure”; regarding claim 8, that “the hooks radially project into a longitudinal path of the lumen”; regarding claim 11, an apparatus, which applicant states “requires a retriever formed of a pair of first and second portions of the wall in contact with each other and forming a double wall thickness of a single piece of material forming the body”; and regarding claim 12, that the retriever comprises a pair of “J-shaped hooks”. It is also noted that Applicant argues the rejections of claims 2 and 3 as being anticipated by Wood, however, these claims are rejected as 103 rejections over Woods in view of Jordan (and it is to be noted the previous office action dated 07/22/204 also used the same 103 rejection over Woods in view of Jordan as used in the current Office Action); thus, these arguments are considered moot. Regarding all the other arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertions. In response to Applicant’s argument regarding claim 1, Wood clearly discloses and illustrates in Figure 10, and modified figure 10, above, a pair of interconnected hooks (H1 & H2); specifically, there are two wire portions (H1 & H2), wherein each wire portion forms/has a hook shape. Each hook shaped wire portion (H1 & H2) comprises a first longitudinal portion (76) and a second portion (78), connected to the first longitudinal portion, and including a bent section forming the hook shape. Both hook shaped wire portions are connected, to one another, at the rounded tip end of the second portion (78). Moreover, it is to be noted that Wood clearly states the structure being an “inverted “J” shape or hook shape” (emphasis added - [0037], Lines 10-11), and further states that the apparatus can be retrieved/grabbed “across the inwardly facing hook formed by the bent portion 78” ([0037], Last 3 Lines). Thus, Wood clearly teaches an apparatus comprising a pair of interconnected hooks (H1 & H2).
Regarding the arguments directed towards claims 4 and 8, Wood clearly teaches a hook (74) radially projecting into a longitudinal path of the lumen (80), illustrated in Figure 10 and modified figure 10, above; and Wood clearly states, on lines 8-9 of paragraph [0037], portion (78), of hook (74), is “bent downwardly toward the stent end and inwardly toward the center lumen 80 of stent 72” (similar language is also set forth in paragraph [0035], Lines 14-16). Therefore, Wood clearly teaches the hook(s) radially projecting into a path of the lumen. Furthermore, regarding claim 5, Woods teaches the first longitudinal portion (76) of each hook (H1 & H2) comprising a partial twist/bend (at portion T), illustrated in Figure 10 and modified figure 10, above. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the terms “bent” and “twisted” seem to be used interchangeably according to the originally filed disclosure of the current application at hand; specifically, paragraph [007] of the originally filed specification of the current application at hand states the first longitudinal portions “may be bent or twisted”, and paragraph [0033] of the originally filed specification of the current application at hand states “hooks 18a, 18b may then be bent” and “the hooks 18a, 18b thus become twisted as a result of this bending and folding action”, i.e. the “twist” is due to bending. It is further to be noted that the definition of the word “twist”, according to the Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries is, “to bend or turn something into a particular shape”; thus, in the instant case, the bent portion T, of the endovascular apparatus of Wood, results in each hook comprising a partial twist. Moreover, it seems the parameter of each hook comprising a “partial twist” is a product-by-process parameter, and it is important to keep in mind that that though a product-by-process parameter/claim is limited by and defined by a/the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production; and the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113). Thus, in the instant case, the apparatus of Wood meets the claimed structure set forth in the claim. Regarding claim 6, Woods teaches the parameter of “the body includes an elongated spine connected to the pair of interconnected hooks as a single unitary structure” since the “elongated spine” is considered to be the material/wire which the endovascular apparatus is made of, and it is stated that the entire endovascular apparatus is made from a single/unitary wire; therefore the elongated spine, i.e. the material/wire of the body portion, which is connected to the pair of interconnected hooks H1 & H2, are all a single unitary structure, thereby reading on the claim.
Regarding claim 11, where applicant states the claim “requires a retriever formed of a pair of first and second portions of the wall in contact with each other and forming a double wall thickness of a single piece of material forming the body”; it is to be noted that the claim does NOT actually set forth such a parameter. Instead, what the claim actually sets forth is “a retriever formed of a thickness that is double the thickness of the wall”; which Wood clearly discloses, in paragraph [0037], and illustrates in Figure 10, and modified figure 10, above. Specifically, an apparatus (72) comprising a body (84) having a wall with a thickness, specifically the thickness of the wall is the thickness of the material/wire forming the wall/body, and a retriever (74), which is formed of a pair/two interconnected wire portions, thus, the retriever is formed of a thickness that is double the thickness of the wall (i.e. since the body is formed of a material/wire having a thickness, and the retriever is formed of a pair/two material/wire portions; therefore, the retriever is formed of a thickness, which is two wires thick, that is double the thickness of the wall, which is one wire thick). Thus, Woods reads on the claim as written. Furthermore, regarding claim 12, Wood clearly teaches the retriever (74) comprising a pair of J-shaped hooks (H1 & H2), illustrated in Figure 10 and modified figure 10; and clearly states the structure being an “inverted “J” shape or hook shape” (emphasis added - [0037], Lines 10-11); thereby clearly teaching J-shaped hooks. Finally, it is noted that Applicant “challenges the Examiner’s contention that “the parameter of the bond comprising a weld is a product-by-process limitation””; however, no such statement/reasoning has been made by Examiner in this Office Action, or the previous action dated 07/22/2024.
Based on the reasoning provided above, the rejection of the claims are deemed to be proper, since all the structural limitations set forth in the claims, of the final apparatus, are taught by the prior art; thus, the rejections stand.
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DINAH BARIA whose telephone number is (571)270-1973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10am - 5pm.
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, Jerrah Edwards can be reached on 408-918-7557. 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.
/DINAH BARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights