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
The amendment filed July 20th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-13, filed July 20th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art that teaches the newly disclosed claim limitations.
The following new grounds of rejection are set forth:
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.
Claim 5 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, the claim recites “the single unitary material” and it is unclear if this is the same single unitary material as the single monolithic unitary material as recited in claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, or is a different single unitary material. For examination purposes, these are the same materials and the limitation will be interpreted as “the single, monolithic, unitary material”.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mou (U.S. Pub. No. 20180192959, previously cited), herein referred to as “Mou” in view of Ruppersberg et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20200121208), herein referred to as “Ruppersberg”.
Regarding claim 1, Mou discloses a medical probe (Abstract: Expandable electrophysiology catheters having electrodes mounted on splines of an expandable member are described), comprising:
a tubular shaft (catheter shaft 106) including a proximal end (proximal end 112) and a distal end (distal end 114) and extending along a longitudinal axis ([0027]: catheter shaft 106 may extend along a central axis 110 between a proximal end 112 and a distal end 114);
an expandable basket assembly (expandable member 104) proximate the distal end of the tubular shaft ([0030]: spline 202 may extend from first proximal location 204 within catheter shaft 106), the expandable basket assembly comprising three or more C-shaped spines (splines 202; [0030]: Expandable member 104 may include one or more splines 202; [0038]: FIG. 5, a cross-sectional view, taken about line A-A of FIG. 3 … First spline segment 402 may extend radially outward from central axis 110 on first side 504 of longitudinal plane 502, and second spline segment 404 may extend radially outward from central axis 110 on second side 506 of longitudinal plane 502; see Fig 5 where the splines are C-shaped) comprising a single unitary material ([0041]: expandable member 104 is formed from a shape memory material. For example, splines 202 may be drawn Nitinol wire; wherein the expandable member as a whole is seen as a unitary object and the singular material is nitinol since that is the composition of the entire expandable member) converging at a central spine intersection configured to permit a bending of the two or more C-shaped spines ([0030]: In undeployed state 200, the flexible splines 202 may be arranged in a compressed linear axial orientation … The distal tip of spline 202 may be at an intersection between spline 202 and central axis 110), the single unitary material comprising:
a deployed state at least partially defining a spheroid shape of the expandable basket assembly in which each of the three or more C- shaped spine comprises a respective end connected to the distal end of the tubular shaft (distal intersection 208; [0031]: the proximal locations of spline 202 are connected to catheter shaft 106 at distal end 114 … The distal tip of spline 202 may be at an intersection between spline 202 and central axis 110; [0033]: expandable member 104 may have an outer envelope in a shape of a sphere, an ellipsoid, or another bulbous volumetric shape), the central spine intersection being positioned on the longitudinal axis at a distal end of the expandable basket assembly (distal intersection 208); and
one or more electrodes (electrodes 304) coupled to each of the three or more C-shaped spines ([0034]: Each spline 202 of expandable member 104 may include an electrode 304), each of the one or more electrodes defining a lumen through the electrode so that each of the three or more C-shaped spines extends through the lumen of each of the one or more electrodes ([0034]: electrodes 304 are on flex circuits that are wrapped over an outer surface of spline 202 to achieve endocardial contact on either side of spline 202).
While Fig. 5 of Mou shows a planar view defining a plane in which each C-shaped spine of the three or more C-shaped spines defines a respective C-shape in the plane, the central spine intersection being defined in the plane, Mou fails to explicitly disclose three or more C-shaped spines comprising a single, monolithic, unitary material, the single, monolithic, unitary material comprising:
a planar state defining a plane in which each C-shaped spine of the three or more C-shaped spines defines a respective C-shape in the plane, the central spine intersection being defined in the plane.
However, Ruppersberg discloses three or more C-shaped spines (spines 81; [0120]: Such a basket structure 83 formed from a Nitinol tube can comprise straight or uncurved splines, or can comprise curved splines that form a spirally wound or wrapped basket structure configuration) comprising a single, monolithic, unitary material ([0112]: (d) cutting each spline 81 from the flat or substantially flat sheet such that between its proximal end part 95 and its distal end part 94 each spline 81 forms a series of compound or connected single curves or arcs 107, 108, and 109 that curve first in a first general direction 101 and then curve second in a second general direction 102 opposite or partially opposite to or from the first direction 101. The distal end parts 94 of the splines 81 form separate distal ends 93 that are not connected to one another. The splines 81 are nested together on the flat or substantially flat surface while the curves 107, 108, and 109 in the splines 81 are being cut such that the splines 81 are adjacent to one another and are separated from adjoining splines by continuous intervening spaces 105 formed between the proximal end parts 95 and the distal ends 93 of the splines 81 during cutting), the single, monolithic, unitary material comprising:
a planar state defining a plane ([0112]: (d) cutting each spline 81 from the flat or substantially flat sheet; wherein the flat sheet defines a plane) in which each C-shaped spine of the three or more C-shaped spines defines a respective C-shape in the plane ([0112]: (d) cutting each spline 81 from the flat or substantially flat sheet such that between its proximal end part 95 and its distal end part 94 each spline 81 forms a series of compound or connected single curves or arcs 107, 108, and 109 that curve first in a first general direction 101 and then curve second in a second general direction 102 opposite or partially opposite to or from the first direction 101; see Fig. 9 where 108 forms the outside of the C shape and 104 forms the inside of the C shape), the central spine intersection being defined in the plane ([0112]: The collar or attachment member 99 is configured, after cutting, to be joined, attached, or secured to the distal portion or distal end 3 of the elongated body 2, or in another embodiment to a distal tip 6 of the basket structure (in which case the distal ends 93 are reversed in position and attached to the distal portion or distal end 3 of the elongated body 2)), and a deployed state (see Figs. 10A-10B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the singular unitary material of Mou to comprise a planar state and respective C-shapes in the plane, as taught by Ruppersberg, for the purpose of the nitinol tube reducing the number of steps required to form a Nitinol basket structure, and requiring less Nitinol metal from which to form basket structure and the configuration preventing bunching and promote spacing apart of adjoining support arms when the expanded basket structure is deployed inside a patient's heart in the expanded second condition (Ruppersberg: [0120], [0113]).
Regarding claim 2, Mou discloses wherein the three or more C-shaped spines extend from the central spine intersection in an equiangular pattern such that respective angles between respectively adjacent C-shaped spines of the three or more C-shaped spines are approximately equal ([0040]: Each spline 202 may be symmetrically disposed about central axis 110 at distal end 114 of catheter shaft 106).
Regarding claim 3, Mou discloses wherein the three or more C-shaped spines comprise four C-shaped spines ([0040]: Expandable member 104 may have between 3-24 splines 202).
Regarding claim 4, Mou in view of Ruppersberg fail to disclose wherein the three or more C-shaped spines comprise exactly three C-shaped spines.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the expandable basket assembly to comprise exactly three C-shaped spines, since Applicant has not disclosed that the number of spines solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with two, three or four spines.
The instant application’s Specification teaches that any number of spines does not produce an unexpected result as paragraph [0062] describes: " Basket assembly 38 can include a number of spines 214 ranging from about two to about five spines from a single sheet of planar material 210" and [0075] describes: “planar sheet of material 210 can cut to include a number of spines 214 ranging from about two to about five spines” such that the number of spines is not critical.
Regarding claim 5, Mou discloses wherein the single unitary material comprises nitinol ([0041]: expandable member 104 is formed from a shape memory material. For example, splines 202 may be drawn Nitinol wire; wherein the expandable member as a whole is seen as a unitary object such that comprising a single material (nitinol) is seen as a single unitary material).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mou in view of Ruppersberg as applied to claim 6, above, and further in view of Auerbach et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20180085064, previously cited), herein referred to as “Auerbach”.
Regarding claim 6, Mou fails to disclose wherein the expandable basket assembly further comprises one or more cutouts located at the central spine intersection.
However, Auerbach discloses wherein the expandable basket assembly further comprises one or more cutouts located at the central spine intersection (see cutout in distal cutting 68 in Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the central spine intersection to comprise one or more cutouts, as taught by Auerbach, for the purpose of enabling transition of the assembly between the collapsed and extended positions (Auerbach: [0030]).
Regarding claim 7, Mou in view of Ruppersberg and Auerbach discloses wherein the expandable basket assembly comprises a single cutout (Auerbach: see distal cutting 68 comprising a singular cutout) located at the central spine intersection ([0030]: Distal fitting 68 and shaft 61 may be fabricated from nitinol and configured to couple the ends of splines 62).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mou in view of Ruppersberg as applied to claim 6, above, and further in view of Just et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20190239811, cited in IDS), herein referred to as “Just”.
Regarding claim 8, Mou in view of Ruppersberg fail to disclose wherein the expandable basket assembly comprises at least one discrete cutout located proximate the central spine intersection for each of the three or more C-shaped spines.
However, Just discloses wherein the expandable basket assembly comprises at least one discrete cutout located proximate the central spine intersection for each of the three or more C-shaped spines ([0058]: The first connection element 229 and second connection element 231 can each comprise a U-shaped member having two substantially parallel legs 233 joined by a curved base 235. Each of the legs 233 are disposed substantially parallel to the axis (A) of the electrode support structure 222; see Fig. 13 where each leg 233 forms a slot where the spline 224 splits into the two legs such that this cutout is on spline 224 since it splits each spline 224 to its legs 233). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medical probe of Mou in view of Ruppersberg to include at least one discrete cutout located proximate the central spine intersection for each C-shaped spine, as taught by Just, to better provide for diametric collapse disproportionate to axial retraction, which may allow for free, uniform axial displacement even when the electrode support structure assembly is being diametrically constrained in some way (Just: [0055]).
Regarding claim 9, Mou in view of Ruppersberg and Just disclose wherein the one or more cutouts extend along at least a portion of each of the three or more C-shaped spines (Just: [0058]: The first connection element 229 and second connection element 231 can each comprise a U-shaped member having two substantially parallel legs 233 joined by a curved base 235. Each of the legs 233 are disposed substantially parallel to the axis (A) of the electrode support structure 222; see Fig. 13 where each leg 233 forms a slot where the spline 224 splits into the two legs such that this cutout is on spline 224 since it splits each spline 224 to its legs 233).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mou in view of Ruppersberg as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Kordis et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20120271140, previously cited), herein referred to as “Kordis” and Olson (U.S. Pub. No. 20220304745, previously cited), herein referred to as “Olson”.
Regarding claim 10, Mou in view of Ruppersberg fails to disclose a spine retention hub disposed proximate the distal end of the tubular shaft, the spine retention hub comprising:
a cylindrical member including a plurality of relief lands disposed on an outer surface of the cylindrical member to allow each of the three or more C-shaped spines to be fitted into one of the plurality of relief lands and retained therein, and
at least one electrode disposed at a distal portion of the spine retention hub.
However, Kordis discloses a spine retention hub (proximal anchor 18) disposed proximate the distal end of the tubular shaft (see Fig. 31D where anchor 158 of 18 is disposed proximal to the distal end of tubular shaft 20), the spine retention hub comprising:
a cylindrical member (anchor 158) including a plurality of relief lands (spline-receiving slots 168) disposed on an outer surface of the cylindrical member to allow each of the three or more C-shaped spines to be fitted into one of the plurality of relief lands and retained therein ([0147]: Anchor 158 also includes spline-receiving slots 168. The number of spline-receiving slots 168 typically is equal to the number of proximal spline end portions 60, and is shown in these drawings as a quantity of eight. As depicted in FIGS. 31A and 31B, the spline-receiving slots 168 may be evenly spaced to allow for the basket splines 14 to be equally spaced in the desired angular position; [0148]: One function of the anchor 158 is to attach the basket splines 14 to the catheter 20 and orient the splines 14 to give the basket 12 the proper shape and ensure it remains straight (not bent) upon collapse into the guide catheter 46. The anchor device 158 is a means by which to orient the basket splines 14 on the proximal end 68 of the spline basket 12 and to fasten them together),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medical probe of Mou in view of Ruppersberg to include a spine retention hub, as taught by Kordis, for the purpose of enabling the attachment of the basket splines to the catheter and to orient the splines to give the basket the proper shape and ensure it remains straight (not bent) upon collapse into the guide catheter (Kordis: [0148]).
But Mou in view of Ruppersberg and Kordis fail to disclose at least one electrode disposed at a distal portion of the spine retention hub.
However, Olson discloses at least one electrode disposed at a distal portion of the spine retention hub ([0041]: splines 202 are coupled together at proximal end 204 and distal end 206, such that electrode basket 200 is “closed” at both ends 204, 206 thereof; [0058]: a second return electrode 240B is positioned proximate to proximal end 204 of electrode basket 200; wherein the proximal end 204 of Olson is seen as a spline retention hub since the splines are all joined and the electrode 240B is disposed at a distal end of this joinery). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medical probe of Mou in view of Ruppersberg and Kordis to include at least one electrode disposed at a distal portion of the spine retention hub, as taught by Olson, for the purpose of the electrode enabling the formation of wide bipoles for ablation therapies (Olson: [0059]).
Claims 11 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mou in view of Ruppersberg as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Gross et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20170172651, cited in IDS), herein referred to as “Gross”.
Regarding claim 11, Mou in view of Ruppersberg fails to disclose wherein each of the one or more electrodes comprises a wire relief adjacent the lumen to allow for one or more wires to extend adjacent to the lumen.
However, Gross discloses wherein each of the one or more electrodes comprises a wire relief adjacent the lumen to allow for one or more wires to extend adjacent to the lumen ([0219]: Each PCB 32 defines at least one conductor 50 (not shown in FIGS. 1A-B, but shown in FIGS. 3A-B) that electrically connects a respective electrode 38 to catheter 24. Typically, each PCB 32 defines at least one conductive pad 52 that facilitates this electrical connection, e.g., as described with reference to FIGS. 3A-B. For applications in which each subunit comprises a plurality of electrodes 38 (e.g., three electrodes as shown), each PCB typically defines a corresponding plurality of conductors 50, and a corresponding plurality of conductive pads 52; [0229]: each electrode therefore surrounds a respective portion of the PCB. The electrode is secured to the PCB such that the electrode (i.e., the ring) is in electrical contact with a respective conductive pad 52. For example, the electrode may be crimped (i.e., deformed into a flatter shape), soldered, or laser welded to the PCB (e.g., to pad 52); wherein crimping is seen as producing a wire relief). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the one or more electrodes of Mou in view of Ruppersberg to comprise a wire relief as taught by Gross, for the purpose of facilitating electrical connection and securing the electrode to the PCB/wire (Gross: [0219], [0229]).
Regarding claim 14, Mou in view of Ruppersberg fails to disclose a plurality of wires each electrically joined to a respective electrode of the one or more of electrodes.
However, Gross discloses a plurality of wires each electrically joined to a respective electrode of the one or more of electrodes ([0219]: at least one conductor 50 (not shown in FIGS. 1A-B, but shown in FIGS. 3A-B) that electrically connects a respective electrode 38 to catheter 24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medical probe of Mou in view of Ruppersberg to include a plurality of wires, as taught by Gross, for the purpose of facilitating an electrical connection (Gross: [0219]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mou in view of Ruppersberg as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Nedved et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20230000550, cited in IDS & earliest effective filing date), herein referred to as “Nedved”.
Regarding claim 12, Mou in view of Ruppersberg fails to disclose irrigation openings disposed proximate the distal end of the tubular shaft, the irrigation openings configured to deliver an irrigation fluid to the one or more electrodes.
However, Nedved discloses irrigation openings (apertures 1901) disposed proximate the distal end of the tubular shaft (see Fig. 19), the irrigation openings configured to deliver an irrigation fluid to the one or more electrodes ([0066]: direct at least part of the irrigation fluid into the cavity of a central bullet structure for example by apertures (1901) as shown in FIG. 19; wherein this cavity includes the electrodes, see Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medical probe of Mou in view of Ruppersberg to include irrigation openings, as taught by Nedved, for the purpose of directing at least part of the irrigation fluid into the cavity of a central bullet structure/basket assembly (Nedved: [0066]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mou in view of Ruppersberg as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Just.
Regarding claim 13, Mou in view of Ruppersberg fails to disclose a plurality of insulative sleeves each disposed over one of the three or more C-shaped spines and within the lumen of one of the one or more electrodes.
However, Just discloses a plurality of insulative sleeves each disposed over one of the three or more C-shaped spines and within the lumen of one of the one or more electrodes ([0037]: one or more of the plurality of splines 24 can have one or more electrodes 54 mounted on the non-conductive covering; [0051]: An exemplary method for attaching a lead wire to an electrode 54 involves making a small hole through the wall of the non-conductive covering. For example and without limitation, a needle may be inserted through the non-conductive covering and heated sufficiently to form a permanent hole. The lead wire can then be drawn through the hole by using a microhook or similar structure. The lead wire can then be stripped of any coating and welded to the underside of the electrode 54, which can then be slid into position over the hole and fixed in place). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medical probe of Mou in view of Ruppersberg to include a plurality of insulative sleeves, as taught by Just, for the purpose of the plurality of insulative sleeves/non-conductive tubings providing biocompatibility (Just: [0037]).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mou in view of Ruppersberg as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Girdhar (U.S. Pub. No. 20220387051, previously cited), herein referred to as “Girdhar”.
Regarding claim 15, Mou in view of Ruppersberg fails to disclose wherein at least a portion of the wires of the plurality of the wires respectively comprises an electrically conductive core material comprising a first electrical conductivity, an electrically conductive cover material comprising a second electrical conductivity less than the first electrical conductivity, the electrically conductive cover material circumscribing the electrically conductive core material, and an insulative jacket circumscribing the electrically conductive cover material.
However, Girdhar discloses wherein at least a portion of the wires of the plurality of the wires respectively comprises an electrically conductive core material (interventional element 106) comprising a first electrical conductivity ([0059]: interventional element body can be formed from Nitinol) an electrically conductive cover material (conductive material 150) comprising a second electrical conductivity ([0059]: the conductive material 150 can be a gold coating), the electrically conductive cover material circumscribing the electrically conductive core material ([0058]: As illustrated in FIG. 2B, the interventional element 106 can include an insulating material 127 and a conductive material 150 coupled to the interventional element 106), and an insulative jacket circumscribing the electrically conductive cover material ([0058]: As illustrated in FIG. 2B, the interventional element 106 can include an insulating material 127 and a conductive material 150 coupled to the interventional element 106).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medical probe of Mou in view of Ruppersberg to have a portion of the wires as taught by Girdhar, for the purpose of the higher electrically conductive material such that an electric current can more easily pass through the interventional element via the conductive material, which thus, increases the electrical conductivity of the interventional element and the insulative material electrically isolating one or more portions of the interventional element (Girdhar: [0059]).
But Mou in view of Ruppersberg and Girdhar fails to disclose wherein the second electrical conductivity is less than the first electrical conductivity.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the second electrical conductivity to be less than the first electrical conductivity, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 16, Mou in view of Ruppersberg fails to disclose:
wherein at least a portion of the wires of the plurality of the wires respectively comprises a plurality of strands and an insulative jacket circumscribing the plurality of the strands, and
wherein each strand of the plurality of strands respectively comprises an electrically conductive core material comprising a first electrical conductivity and an electrically conductive cover material comprising a second electrical conductivity less than the first electrical conductivity, the electrically conductive cover material circumscribing the electrically conductive core material.
However, Girdhar discloses:
wherein at least a portion of the wires of the plurality of the wires respectively comprises a plurality of strands (interventional element 106 & second conductor 118) and an insulative jacket circumscribing the plurality of the strands ([0043]: the bodies of the catheters 110, 112, and 114 can be made from various thermoplastics, e.g., polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE or TEFLON®), fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), etc.), and
wherein each strand of the plurality of strands respectively comprises an electrically conductive core material (interventional element 106 & second conductor 118) comprising a first electrical conductivity ([0059]: the interventional element body can be formed from Nitinol; [0062]; the second conductor 118 can be formed from stainless steel) and an electrically conductive cover material comprising a second electrical conductivity ([0059]: the conductive material 150 can be a gold coating; [0062]: the conductive material 152 can be a gold coating)), the electrically conductive cover material circumscribing the electrically conductive core material ([0061]: the conductive material 152 can be disposed over an outer surface of the second conductor 118 such that the conductive material 152 surrounds the second conductor 118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medical probe of Mou in view of Ruppersberg to have a portion of the wires as taught by Girdhar, for the purpose of the higher electrically conductive material such that an electric current can more easily pass through the interventional element/second conductor via the conductive material, which thus, increases the electrical conductivity of the interventional element/second conductor (Girdhar: [0059], [0062]).
But Mou in view of Ruppersberg and Girdhar fails to disclose wherein the second electrical conductivity is less than the first electrical conductivity.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the second electrical conductivity to be less than the first electrical conductivity, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197,125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abigail M Ziegler whose telephone number is (571)272-1991. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joanne Rodden can be reached at (303) 297-4276. 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.
/ABIGAIL M ZIEGLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/BEVERLY M FLANAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights