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 September 2nd, 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted October 6th, 2026 has been considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed September 2nd, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 &11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 the newly disclosed claim limitations and a new interpretation of the current prior art of record.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-12 with respect to the Olson reference and the tethers disclosed in Olson, the Examiner agrees that these are different from the claimed invention, however, this embodiment of Olson is only an embodiment of Olson’s disclosure and this embodiment is not relied upon in any of the prior art rejections. Olson’s Figs. 3-7 show the basket 200 without the tethers such that the tethers are a feature but not necessarily essential to the disclosure.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 12-13 that Teague only discloses retainers that are designed to restrict movement of the distal ends of spines, the Examiner respectfully disagrees on the grounds that Teague does show the movement in Figs. 24-15 where the leg are shown as rotating relative to the retainer 124.
In response to applicant's argument on page 12 that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “in no Teague embodiment is a leg end retained to as to rotate relative to the retainer”/language describing that the degrees of freedom of movement of the stopper of each of the splines; the Examiner notes that this feature is described in a dependent claim, however, the motion is no described in relation to the shape of the loop retention member and/or the plurality of slots) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that Olson/Teague/Marecki/Kimmell do not describe the newly amended claim limitations of claims 1 and/or 11, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instance of each reference, they all disclose the various configurations of a distal hub/cap such that features like the shape, modes of connection, etc. are all known in the art.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-2 & 5-13 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 1, the claim recites “the slots” in line 14 and it is unclear if these are the same slots as the plurality of slots recited in line 13 or are different slots. For examination purposes, these are the same slots and the limitation will be interpreted as “the plurality of slots”.
Claims 2 & 5-10 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “the slots” in line 12 and it is unclear if these are the same slots as the plurality of slots recited earlier in line 12 or are different slots. For examination purposes, these are the same slots and the limitation will be interpreted as “the plurality of slots”.
Claims 12-13 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 11.
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, 7-8 & 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Just et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20130172715, previously cited), herein referred to as “Just” in view of Nedved et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20230000550, earliest effective filing date & cited in IDS), herein referred to as “Nedved” and Tessmer et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 7794473, previously cited). Herein referred to as “Tessmer”.
Regarding claim 1, Just discloses a medical probe (Abstract: An electrode support structure assembly is provided comprising an electrode support structure including a plurality of splines; [0033]: Thus, the particular features, structures, or characteristics illustrated or described in connection with one embodiment may be combined, in whole or in part, with the features structures, or characteristics of one or more other embodiments without limitation given that such combination is not illogical or non-functional), comprising:
a tubular shaft (catheter body 20) including a proximal end (proximal end of catheter body 20) and a distal end (distal end of catheter body 20), the tubular shaft extending along a longitudinal axis ([0037]: The electrode support structure 22 defines a longitudinal axis (A); see Figs. 1-2 where this axis lies along both the electrode support structure 22 and catheter body 20);
an expandable basket assembly (electrode support assembly 112) proximate the distal end of the tubular shaft ([0046]: The electrode support structure assembly 112 can be similarly mounted to the distal end of the elongated catheter body 20 (see FIG. 1); see Fig. 12C where the distal end of the basket assembly is within the distal end of the catheter body), the expandable basket assembly comprising:
a structure (electrode support structure 122) that includes a plurality of spine sections (plurality of splines 124) and a central spine intersection (distal end of electrode support structure comprising the distal end portions 128 of splines 124 first element 130 & second element 140) being positioned on the longitudinal axis at a distal end of the expandable basket assembly (see Fig. 4 for relationship to longitudinal axis A), each spine section of the plurality of spine sections including a proximal spine end (proximal end of spline 14/portion connected to proximal anchor 18) connected to the distal end of the tubular shaft ([0051]: third element 42 can comprise a generally cylindrical member having an outer radial surface 44 including a plurality of channels 46. Each of the plurality of channels 46 can be configured to receive the proximal end portion 126 of each of the plurality of splines 124; see Fig. 1 & 4) and a stopper (distal end portion 128, stopper is distal end 138) positioned at a distal spine end ([0047]: Each of the plurality of slots 134 is configured to receive the distal end portion 128 of each of the plurality of splines 124);
a loop retention hub (first element 130 & second element 140) comprising a first portion (first element 130) and a second portion (second element 140) configured to mate with each other ([0050]: a second element 140 configured for engagement with the first element 130), and define a body that decreases in width in a proximal direction along the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 7 where the first element 130 and second element 140 define a body that decreases in width in a proximal direction (where in Fig. 7, the proximal direction is in the leftward direction) along the longitudinal axis), a plurality of slots (plurality of slots 134) defined through the body into a hollow (see hollow interior of first element 130 & second element 140 in Fig. 7), the loop retention hub retaining the stopper of each of the plurality of spine sections through a respective slot of the plurality of slots ([0047]: Each of the plurality of slots 134 is configured to receive the distal end portion 128 of each of the plurality of splines 124), and allowing the plurality of spine sections to rotate relative to the loop retention hub ([0048]: The slots 134 are configured to allow each of the plurality of splines 124 to articulate relative to the axis (a) of the first element 130 Accordingly, the first element 130 is configured to provide freedom for the splines 124 to distally articulate relative to the axis (a) of the first element 130, thereby allowing for increased distal flexibility of the electrode support structure 122, improved collapsibility of the electrode support structure 122; see Fig. 7); and
one or more electrodes (electrodes 54), each comprising a lumen so that one of plurality of spine sections extends through the lumen ([0052]: The electrodes 54 mounted on each of the plurality of splines 24, 124 can comprise ring electrodes).
But Just fails to disclose wherein the loop retention hub defines a converging body section that decreases in width in a proximal direction along the longitudinal axis, a plurality of slots defined through the converging body section into a hollow so that the slots converge in the proximal direction toward the longitudinal axis.
However, Nedved discloses a loop retention hub (central bullet structure 1809, see Fig. 18) comprising a first portion and a second portion ([0066]: The central bullet structure (1809) may comprise several parts connected together (for example by welding, gluing or other mechanical means like snaps, threading, screws, bolts . . . )) configured to define a converging body section that decreases in width in a proximal direction along the longitudinal axis ([0066]: The central bullet structure (1809) may … have different outer shapes as well, for example a cylindrical, spherical or oval), a plurality of slots (windows 1811) defined through the converging body section into a hollow (cavity 1813) so that the slots converge in the proximal direction toward the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 18 where the windows 1811 are along the edge of central bullet structure 1809 and see Fig. 5 where the collapsed configuration is shown; see [0066] wherein a spherical or oval shaped central bullet structure 1809 with windows 1811 would have windows 1811 converging in a proximal direction inward toward the longitudinal axis since they are shown on the proximal edge of the cylindrical 1809), the loop retention hub retaining the stopper of each of the plurality of spine sections through a respective slot of the plurality of slots ([0066]: a hollow structure with cut windows (1811) suitable for accommodation of the proximal part (1803) of the articulated elements (1801). The distal parts (1805) of the articulated elements are in this case placed in the cavity (1813) inside the hollow structure. The distal parts (1805) of the articulated elements may in some examples have dimensions (cross section or width) bigger than dimensions of windows (1811). This prevents slipping of the distal parts (1805) of the articulated elements (1801) through the windows (1811) thus holding articulated elements, and together with them the connection area (1807) and distal parts of the filaments attached to the central bullet structure (1809)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the loop retention hub of Just to the loop retention hub of Nedved for the purpose of allowing for easier radial movement (regarding longitudinal central axis of the catheter) of the filaments in the area of terminal assembly, which may be advantageous during manipulation with an expandable basket, particularly with transition (deployment/retraction) between a collapsed configuration and one or more expanded configurations (Nedved: [0067]).
While Nedved describes the loop retention hub and suggests the structure, Nedved fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of slots defined through the converging body section.
However, Tessmer discloses a loop retention hub (a filter hook/leg receptacle 320 , Figs. 15A-C) comprising a first portion (cone shaped profile 344) and a second portion (spline 338) configured to define a converging body section that decreases in width in a proximal direction along the longitudinal axis (see cone-shaped profile in Fig. 14A & 14B decreasing in width in a proximal direction along the longitudinal axis), a plurality of slots (a plurality of orifices 340) defined through the converging body section so that the slots converge in the proximal direction toward the longitudinal axis (Col. 17, lines 34-36: A plurality of orifices 340 is provided on the cone-shaped profile 344).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the loop retention hub of Just in view of Nedved to the loop retention hub of Tessmer for the purpose of the shape of the loop retention hub minimizing obstruction and allowing for easy insertion and smooth deployment of the legs (Tessmer: Col, 17, lines 37-39).
Regarding claim 7, Just discloses herein the plurality of spine sections are cut from a singular tube and the proximal spine end comprises a single tubular shape ([0051]: Referring now to FIG. 9, in accordance with an embodiment of the disclosure, the proximal end portion 126 of each of the plurality of splines 124 can be formed by laser cutting a tube, such that the proximal end portion 126 of each of the plurality of splines 124 are integral).
The recitation of “wherein the plurality of spine sections are cut from a singular tube” is regarded as a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 8, Just discloses wherein the plurality of slots (plurality of slots 134) is configured such that the stopper of each spine section of the plurality of spine sections is configured to move longitudinally within each of the plurality of slots as the plurality of spine sections rotate relative to the loop retention hub between a collapsed configuration and an expanded configuration ([0048]: The slots 134 are configured to allow each of the plurality of splines 124 to articulate relative to the axis (a) of the first element 130 Accordingly, the first element 130 is configured to provide freedom for the splines 124 to distally articulate relative to the axis (a) of the first element 130, thereby allowing for increased distal flexibility of the electrode support structure 122, improved collapsibility of the electrode support structure 122; see Fig. 7)
Regarding claim 10, Just discloses a central member disposed within the tubular shaft and moveable along the longitudinal axis, wherein each spine section of the plurality of spine sections is moveable from an expanded configuration to a collapsed configuration when the central member moves along the longitudinal axis ([0040]: an expander or tensor (not shown) may be coaxial with the elongated catheter body 20. The expander or tensor can have a distal end at the distal end portion 26 of the electrode support structure 22 and a proximal end extending out the proximal end of the elongated catheter body 20 and attached to the control handle 14. Longitudinal movement of the tensor relative to the elongated catheter body 20 can cause expansion and contraction of the electrode support structure 22. The tensor can comprise any material sufficiently rigid to achieve this function).
Regarding claim 11, Just discloses a medical probe (Abstract: An electrode support structure assembly is provided comprising an electrode support structure including a plurality of splines; [0033]: Thus, the particular features, structures, or characteristics illustrated or described in connection with one embodiment may be combined, in whole or in part, with the features structures, or characteristics of one or more other embodiments without limitation given that such combination is not illogical or non-functional), comprising:
a tubular shaft (catheter body 20) including a proximal end (proximal end of catheter body 20) and a distal end (distal end of catheter body 20), the tubular shaft extending along a longitudinal axis ([0037]: The electrode support structure 22 defines a longitudinal axis (A); see Figs. 1-2 where this axis lies along both the electrode support structure 22 and catheter body 20);
an expandable basket assembly (electrode support assembly 112) proximate the distal end of the tubular shaft ([0046]: The electrode support structure assembly 112 can be similarly mounted to the distal end of the elongated catheter body 20 (see FIG. 1); see Fig. 12C where the distal end of the basket assembly is within the distal end of the catheter body), comprising a plurality of spines (plurality of splines 124) each comprising a distal end comprising a stopper (distal end portion 128, stopper is distal end 138) extending therefrom ([0047]: Each of the plurality of slots 134 is configured to receive the distal end portion 128 of each of the plurality of splines 124) and a proximal end connected to the distal end of the tubular shaft ([0051]: third element 42 can comprise a generally cylindrical member having an outer radial surface 44 including a plurality of channels 46. Each of the plurality of channels 46 can be configured to receive the proximal end portion 126 of each of the plurality of splines 124; see Fig. 1 & 4), the plurality of spines being configured to bow radially from the longitudinal axis ([0037]: one or more of the plurality of splines 24 can splay or bow radially outwardly substantially uniformly along the length of the electrode support structure 22, away from longitudinal axis (A), or one or more of the plurality of splines 24 can splay or bow radially outwardly in varying amounts along the length of the electrode support structure 22);
a loop retention hub (first element 130 & second element 140) securing the distal ends of the plurality of spines ([0047]: Each of the plurality of slots 134 is configured to receive the distal end portion 128 of each of the plurality of splines 124) such that the stoppers are configured to rotate with respect to the loop retention hub to allow the plurality of spines to bow radially from the longitudinal axis ([0048]: The slots 134 are configured to allow each of the plurality of splines 124 to articulate relative to the axis (a) of the first element 130 Accordingly, the first element 130 is configured to provide freedom for the splines 124 to distally articulate relative to the axis (a) of the first element 130, thereby allowing for increased distal flexibility of the electrode support structure 122, improved collapsibility of the electrode support structure 122; see Fig. 7), the loop retention hub comprising a body (first element 130 & second element 140) comprising a width that decreases relative to the longitudinal axis in a proximal direction (see Fig. 7 where the first element 130 and second element 140 define a body that decreases in width in a proximal direction (where in Fig. 7, the proximal direction is in the leftward direction) along the longitudinal axis), a plurality of slots (a plurality of slots 134) defined through the body into a hollow (see hollow interior of first element 130 & second element 140 in Fig. 7), the loop retention hub retaining the stopper of each of the plurality of spines through a respective slot of the plurality of slots ([0047]: Each of the plurality of slots 134 is configured to receive the distal end portion 128 of each of the plurality of splines 124), and allowing the plurality of spines to rotate relative to the loop retention hub ([0048]: The slots 134 are configured to allow each of the plurality of splines 124 to articulate relative to the axis (a) of the first element 130 Accordingly, the first element 130 is configured to provide freedom for the splines 124 to distally articulate relative to the axis (a) of the first element 130, thereby allowing for increased distal flexibility of the electrode support structure 122, improved collapsibility of the electrode support structure 122; see Fig. 7); and
one or more electrodes (electrodes 54) coupled to each of the plurality of spines, each electrode of the one or more electrodes defining a lumen therethrough so that a respective spine of the plurality of spines extends through the lumen of each of the one or more electrodes ([0052]: The electrodes 54 mounted on each of the plurality of splines 24, 124 can comprise ring electrodes).
But Just fails to disclose the loop retention hub comprising a converging body section, a plurality of slots defined through the converging body section into a hollow so that the slots converge in the proximal direction toward the longitudinal axis.
However, Nedved discloses the loop retention hub (central bullet structure 1809, see Fig. 18) comprising a converging body section comprising a width that decreases relative to the longitudinal axis in a proximal direction ([0066]: The central bullet structure (1809) may … have different outer shapes as well, for example a cylindrical, spherical or oval), a plurality of slots (windows 1811) defined through the converging body section into a hollow (cavity 1813) so that the slots converge in the proximal direction toward the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 18 where the windows 1811 are along the edge of central bullet structure 1809 and see Fig. 5 where the collapsed configuration is shown; see [0066] wherein a spherical or oval shaped central bullet structure 1809 with windows 1811 would have windows 1811 converging in a proximal direction inward toward the longitudinal axis since they are shown on the proximal edge of the cylindrical 1809), the loop retention hub retaining the stopper of each of the plurality of spines through a respective slot of the plurality of slots ([0066]: a hollow structure with cut windows (1811) suitable for accommodation of the proximal part (1803) of the articulated elements (1801). The distal parts (1805) of the articulated elements are in this case placed in the cavity (1813) inside the hollow structure. The distal parts (1805) of the articulated elements may in some examples have dimensions (cross section or width) bigger than dimensions of windows (1811). This prevents slipping of the distal parts (1805) of the articulated elements (1801) through the windows (1811) thus holding articulated elements, and together with them the connection area (1807) and distal parts of the filaments attached to the central bullet structure (1809)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the loop retention hub of Just to the loop retention hub of Nedved for the purpose of allowing for easier radial movement (regarding longitudinal central axis of the catheter) of the filaments in the area of terminal assembly, which may be advantageous during manipulation with an expandable basket, particularly with transition (deployment/retraction) between a collapsed configuration and one or more expanded configurations (Nedved: [0067]).
While Nedved describes the loop retention hub and suggests the structure, Nedved fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of slots defined through the converging body section.
However, Tessmer discloses the loop retention hub (a filter hook/leg receptacle 320 , Figs. 15A-C) comprising a converging body section (cone shaped profile 344) comprising a width that decreases relative to the longitudinal axis in a proximal direction (see cone-shaped profile in Fig. 14A & 14B decreasing in width in a proximal direction along the longitudinal axis), a plurality of slots (a plurality of orifices 340) defined through the converging body section so that the slots converge in the proximal direction toward the longitudinal axis (Col. 17, lines 34-36: A plurality of orifices 340 is provided on the cone-shaped profile 344).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the loop retention hub of Just to the loop retention hub of Tessmer for the purpose of the shape of the loop retention hub minimizing obstruction and allowing for easy insertion and smooth deployment of the legs (Tessmer: Col, 17, lines 37-39).
Regarding claim 12, Just discloses wherein the loop retention hub (first element 130 & second element 140) comprises a first portion (first element 130) and a second portion (second element 140) clamped over the stoppers of the plurality of spines ([0050]: the electrode support structure assembly 112 comprises a second element 140 configured for engagement with the first element 130 to retain the distal end portion 128 of the each of the plurality of splines 124 within the plurality of slots 134 of the first element 130; wherein “configured for engagement” is seen as a functional equivalent to “clamped”).
Regarding claim 13, Just discloses wherein the plurality of slots is (plurality of slots 134) configured such that the stopper of each spine of the plurality of spines is configured to move longitudinally within each of the plurality of slots as the plurality of spines to rotate relative to the loop retention hub ([0048]: The slots 134 are configured to allow each of the plurality of splines 124 to articulate relative to the axis (a) of the first element 130 Accordingly, the first element 130 is configured to provide freedom for the splines 124 to distally articulate relative to the axis (a) of the first element 130, thereby allowing for increased distal flexibility of the electrode support structure 122, improved collapsibility of the electrode support structure 122; see Fig. 7).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Just in view of Nedved and Tessmer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Olson (U.S. Pub. No. 20220304745, previously cited), herein referred to as “Olson”.
Regarding claim 2, Just discloses a spine retention hub (third element 42) disposed proximate the distal end of the tubular shaft (see Fig. 1 & 4), the spine retention hub comprising a cylindrical member ([0051]: third element 42 can comprise a generally cylindrical member) including a plurality of relief lands (plurality of channels 46) disposed on an outer surface of the cylindrical member to allow each spine section of the plurality of spine sections to be fitted into a respective relief land of the plurality of relief lands and retained therein ([0051]: third element 42 can comprise a generally cylindrical member having an outer radial surface 44 including a plurality of channels 46. Each of the plurality of channels 46 can be configured to receive the proximal end portion 126 of each of the plurality of splines 124),
But Just in view of Nedved and Tessmer fails to disclose the spine retention hub further comprising at least one electrode disposed at a distal portion of the spine retention hub.
However, Olson discloses the spine retention hub further comprising 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 spine retention hub of Just in view of Nedved and Tessmer 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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Just in view of Nedved and Tessmer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Teague et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20060058813, previously cited), herein referred to as “Teague”.
Regarding claim 5, Just in view of Nedved and Tessmer fails to disclose wherein the loop retention hub further comprises:
two or more protrusions positioned on the first portion or the second portion; and
two or more indentations positioned on the opposite portion of the first portion and the second portion, the two or more indentations engaging the two or more protrusions to clamp the first portion to the second portion.
However, Teague discloses wherein the loop retention hub (retainer 124, Figs. 14-16) further comprises:
two or more protrusions (risers 256) positioned on the first portion or the second portion ([0060]: the first member 248 includes an inner face 254 and two risers 256. Alternatively, the first member 248 may include any number of risers 256. A riser 256 is a projection that extends substantially vertically from the inner face 254 of the first member 248); and
two or more indentations positioned on the opposite portion of the first portion and the second portion ([0062]: The second member 252 includes a first end 247, a second end 249, a lumen 251 that extends at least from the first end 247 towards the second end 249; see Fig. 15 where the risers 256 mate with lumen 251 such that lumen 251 is seen as a functional equivalent to two or more indentations since the lumen performs the same function as mating with the risers 256), the two or more indentations engaging the two or more protrusions to clamp the first portion to the second portion ([0062]: the second member 252 is attached to the first member 248 … the risers 256 of the first member 248 contact the inner surface 250 of the second member 252. The risers 256 are forcibly slid along the tapered inner surface 250 of the second member 252 in the direction indicated by arrows 253, thereby providing a force fit between the first member 248 and the second member 252).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the loop retention hub of Just in view of Nedved and Tessmer to comprise two or more protrusions and two or more indentations, as taught by Teague, for the purpose of the intermediate portions of the legs/splines are, therefore, firmly encapsulated between the inner face of the first member and the second member (Teague: [0062]).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to comprise two or more indentations positioned on the opposite portion of the first portion and the second portion, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 6, Just in view of Nedved, Tessmer and Teague discloses wherein the plurality of spine sections fit within paths formed between the two or more protrusions (Teague: [0161]: To join the intermediate portions 172 of the legs 164 together with the retainer 124 at the distal end 166 of the retrieval basket 120, the intermediate portions 172 of the legs 164 are initially placed across the inner face 254 of the first member 248. For instance, the intermediate portions 172 of the legs 164 may pass between the risers 256. In one embodiment, as illustrated in FIG. 14, the intermediate portions 172 of the legs 164 are side-by-side, but do not cross one another. In another embodiment, referring now to FIG. 15, the intermediate portions 172 of the legs 164 cross one another at the distal end 166 of the retrieval basket 120).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Just in view of Nedved and Tessmer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kimmell (U.S. Pat. No. 3952747, previously cited), herein referred to as “Kimmell”.
Regarding claim 9, Just in view of Nedved and Tessmer fails to disclose wherein the loop retention hub comprises two substantially hemispherical members coupled to each other to retain the plurality of spines.
However, Kimmell discloses wherein the loop retention hub comprises two substantially hemispherical members coupled to each other to retain the plurality of spines (Col. 5, lines 14-16: The filter 10 includes an apical hub 14 of overall egg-shaped or tear drop configuration and which has a generally hemispherically shaped end portion 14a). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the loop retention hub of Just in view of Nedved and Tessmer to the shape of the loop retention hub of Kimmell for the purpose of the construction avoiding impalement of the filter on the blood vessel walls during emplacement, and also avoiding irritation or scratching of the blood vessel during insertion (Kimmell: Col. 5, lines 16-19). Wherein in this modification, it is only to the shape of the loop retention hub, the teaching of two members coupled to each other is already taught by Just.
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
