DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/2/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendments filed on 12/2/2025. Claims 1, 13 and 20 are amended. Claims 10-12 have been canceled. Claims 21 and 22 are newly added. Claims 1-9 and 13-22 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 12/2/2025, with respect to claims 1, 13 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the new references and new interpretation of the prior art of record being used in the current rejection. Applicant’s arguments are only directed to the amended claims, therefore the arguments are addressed in the body of the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitations “a link connecting the first engaging member to the second engaging member”. It is not clear to the examiner how there is a link connecting the first engagement member to the second engagement member if the first engaging member is mounted to the distal bumper structure and rotatably mated to the threaded outer profile of the distal bumper structure. The examiner wants to note that the link 313 is shown in Figures 4-5 of the applicant’s drawings which does not show a distal bumper structure having a threaded outer profile, while Figure 3 of applicant’s drawings shows the distal bumper structure having a threaded outer profile but does not show a link connecting the first engaging member to the second engaging member. It appears that claim 8 is directed to another embodiment of the invention and amended claim 1 is not generic anymore to cover the different embodiments. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is rejected due to be dependent on rejected claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1, 5-7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Tenne (US Pub No. 2007/0255386).
Regarding claim 1, Tenne discloses (Figures 1-7) a device (12) fully capable in being used as an obstruction removal device for capturing and removing obstructions from a vascular system comprising: a proximal core structure (proximal section of member 24) (see annotated figure below); a distal bumper structure (distal section of member 24) (see annotated figure below) connected to the proximal core structure and having a threaded outer profile (threads of 30 and 32) (Figures 1 and 7); and a first engaging member (10) comprising a plurality of struts extending between a proximal end and a distal end of the first engaging member (clearly shown in Figure 7), the first engaging member being mounted to the distal bumper structure and rotatably mated to the threaded outer profile at both the proximal end and the distal end of the first engaging member (clearly shown in Figures 1 and 5) (Paragraph 0031). [Since Tenne discloses all of the structural elements in the same arrangement as claimed, then Tenne’s device is fully capable in being used as an obstruction removal device for capturing and removing obstructions from a vascular system]
PNG
media_image1.png
502
849
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, wherein the first engaging member is configured to rotate independently of the distal bumper structure (Paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the first engaging member is configured to rotate independently of the proximal core structure (Paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the first engaging member includes a first opening (see annotated figure below) and a second opening (see annotated figure below), wherein the first opening is positioned at or near the proximal end of the first engaging member, and wherein the second opening is positioned at or near the distal end of the first engaging member (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
616
857
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, wherein at least one strut of the plurality of struts has a protruding feature (44) (Figures 3A-3B).
Claims 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Aboytes (US Pub No. 2011/0213403).
Regarding claim 13, Aboytes discloses an obstruction removal device (Figure 6) for capturing and removing obstructions from a vascular system (Paragraphs 0093-0098) comprising: a proximal core structure (558); a distal bumper structure (shaft that goes from 558 to 536) (see annotated figure below) distal to the proximal core structure (Figure 6); and a plurality of engaging members (526, 527, 528), at least one of the plurality of engaging members (528) comprising a plurality of struts extending between a proximal end and a distal end of the at least one of the plurality of engaging members (clearly shown in Figure 6), wherein the plurality of struts of the at least one of the plurality of engaging members forms a first plurality of openings (see annotated figure below) adjacent to the proximal end of the first engaging member and a second plurality of openings (see annotated figure below) coupled to the first plurality of openings, wherein openings in the second plurality of openings are larger than openings in the first plurality of openings (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
691
617
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, further comprising a plurality of links (538, 560), wherein each of the plurality of links couples one of the plurality of the engaging members and an adjacent engaging member of the plurality of engaging members (Figure 6).
Regarding claim 16, wherein each of the plurality of engaging members is comprised of a first opening at or near the proximal end and a second opening at or near the distal end (see annotated figure above for claim 13).
Regarding claim 17, further discloses a link (560) coupling the second opening of a first engaging member (528) of the plurality of engaging members to the first opening of a second engaging member (527) of the plurality of engaging members (Figure 6) [Indirectly coupling].
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 of this title, 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tenne (US Pub No. 2007/0255386) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Jones (US Pub No. 2005/0038496).
Regarding claim 2, Tenne discloses the invention above except for wherein the proximal core structure is comprised of a coil.
Jones, in the analogous art of implant delivery devices, teaches (Figures 1-2) a proximal core structure (proximal section of 26) comprising a coil (32) (Paragraphs 0042 and 0047). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modify the device of Tenne to have the proximal core structure to comprise a coil as taught by Jones, in order to have the delivery system to remain sufficiently flexible to traverse tortuous blood vessels (Jones, Paragraph 0047).
Claims 3-4 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tenne (US Pub No. 2007/0255386) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Simpson (US Pub No. 2013/0204163).
Regarding claims 3 and 22, Tenne discloses the invention above except for the distal bumper structure is composed of a radiopaque material.
Simpson, in the analogous art of implant delivery devices, teaches (Figures 1-2) a distal bumper structure (110) being composed of a radiopaque material (Paragraph 0041). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modify the device of Tenne to have the distal bumper structure to be composed of a radiopaque material as taught by Simpson, in order to better visualize the device when performing the surgical procedure (Simpson, Paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 4, Tenne modified by Simpson further discloses wherein the proximal core structure is composed of a non-radiopaque material (Tenne, Paragraph 0021).
Claims 14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aboytes (US Pub No. 2011/0213403) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Brady (US Pub No. 2013/0345739).
Regarding claims 14 and 18-19, Aboytes discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above except for wherein at least one of the plurality of engaging members can rotate independently of another of the plurality of engaging members and wherein at least one of the plurality of engaging members can rotate independently of the distal bumper structure and the proximal core structure.
Brady, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (Figure 20a) a retrieval device that includes engaging members each able to rotate about a longitudinal axis independently of other engaging members (Paragraph 0546). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modify the device of Aboytes to have at least one of the plurality of engaging members to rotate independently of another of the plurality of engaging members as taught by Brady, in order to take advantage of its articulation features and conform to the bends of the vessels with minimal loss of expanded shape (Brady, Paragraph 0546). [Aboytes modified by Brady as a whole would result in at least one of the plurality of engaging members to rotate independently of another of the plurality of engaging members and wherein at least one of the plurality of engaging members to rotate independently of the distal bumper structure and the proximal core structure]
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tenne (US Pub No. 2007/0255386) in view of Simpson (US Pub No. 2013/0204163).
Regarding claim 20, Tenne discloses (Figures 1-7) a device (12) fully capable in being used as an obstruction removal device for capturing and removing obstructions from a vascular system comprising: a proximal core structure (proximal section of member 24) (see annotated figure above for claim 1), wherein the proximal core structure is composed of a non-radiopaque material (Paragraph 0021); a distal bumper structure (distal section of member 24) (see annotated figure above for claim 1) connected to the proximal core structure and having a threaded outer profile (threads of 30 and 32) (Figures 1 and 7); and an engaging means (10) for removing clots [Fully capable in doing this] comprising a plurality of struts extending between a proximal end and a distal end of the engaging means (clearly shown in Figure 7), the engaging means being mounted to the distal bumper structure and rotatably mated to the threaded outer profile at both the proximal end and the distal end of the engaging means (clearly shown in Figures 1 and 5) (Paragraph 0031). [Since Tenne discloses all of the structural elements in the same arrangement as claimed, then Tenne’s device is fully capable in being used as an obstruction removal device for capturing and removing obstructions from a vascular system]
Tenne fails to disclose the distal bumper structure is composed of a radiopaque material.
Simpson, in the analogous art of implant delivery devices, teaches (Figures 1-2) a distal bumper structure (110) being composed of a radiopaque material (Paragraph 0041). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modify the device of Tenne to have the distal bumper structure to be composed of a radiopaque material as taught by Simpson, in order to better visualize the device when performing the surgical procedure (Simpson, Paragraph 0041).
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 13-15 and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, 11 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 9,211,132. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant
application are fully contained within the claim of the patent application.
Claims
17/820,160
1
2
3
5
6
8
9
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
Claims
Patent 9,211,132
1
11
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
13
1
1
1
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 13-17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 10 and 15-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,722,254. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are fully contained within the claim of the patent application.
Claims
17/820,160
1
2
7
8
13
14
15
16
17
20
Claims
Patent 10,722,254
1, 8, 15-18
10
1, 8, 15
1, 8, 15
1, 8, 15-18
1, 8, 15
1, 8, 15
1, 8, 15
1, 8, 15
1, 8, 15-18
Claims 1, 5-9 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 10 and 15-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,439,416. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are fully contained within the claim of the patent application.
Claims
17/820,160
1
5
6
7
8
9
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Claims
Patent 11,439,416
1, 4, 6, 8, 15, 17
7, 18
5, 16
2-3, 8-10
1, 4, 6, 8, 15, 17
1, 4, 6, 8, 15, 17
1, 4, 6, 8, 15, 17
1, 4, 6, 8, 15, 17
1, 4, 6, 8, 15, 17
2-3, 8-10
1, 4, 6, 8, 15, 17
5, 16
7, 18
1, 4, 6, 8, 15, 17
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAJID JAMIALAHMADI whose telephone number is (571) 270-0172. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7am-5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Darwin Erezo can be reached on (571) 272-4695. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAJID JAMIALAHMADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771