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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Notice of Amendment
In response to the amendment(s) filed on 3/3/26, amended claim(s) 1 is/are acknowledged. The following new and/or reiterated ground(s) of rejection is/are set forth:
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an electrical interface … wherein the electrical interface is configured to receive and transfer power only for the intravascular sensor and the transceiver,” in claim 1, which corresponds to “conductive contacts” (see para [0035] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 11, 14, and 17-19 is/are rejected under under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0187981 to Millett et al. (hereinafter “Millett”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0148693 to Burkett (hereinafter “Burkett’693”).
For claim 1, Millet discloses an apparatus (Abstract), comprising:
an intravascular guidewire (100/400) (Fig. 1/5) (para [0033]/[0059]) (“…the intravascular devices are guide-wires,” Abstract) configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) be positioned within a blood vessel of a patient (para [0030]), wherein the intravascular guidewire comprises a proximal portion (proximal portion of 100/400), a distal portion (distal portion of 100/400), a length defined between the proximal portion and the distal portion (length of 100/400);
an intravascular sensor (108/408) (Fig. 1/5) (para [0033]) positioned at the distal portion (as can be seen in Fig. 1) and configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) obtain intravascular data (para [0033]);
at least one wire (unlabeled, but as can be seen in Fig. 5, i.e., the lines connecting 408 to 410 to 412) (also see 232 in Fig. 2 and para [0042]) extending within the length (as can be seen in Fig. 5) (also see para [0042]) and coupled to the intravascular sensor (as can be seen in Fig. 5) (also see para [0042]);
a transceiver (410) (Fig. 5) (para [0062] and [0064]) (Examiner’s Note: also see para [0085], which discloses that the “sensor control module” can digitize analog data, and Applicant’s specification discloses that the transceiver also can digitize data, see para [0031] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed) positioned within the length (as can be seen in Fig. 5) and coupled to the at least one wire such that the transceiver is in communication with the intravascular sensor via the at least one wire (as can be seen in Fig. 5);
an antenna (412) (Fig. 5) (para [0063]) coupled to the transceiver (as can be seen in Fig. 5) and configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) provide wireless transmission of the intravascular data (para [0063] and [0065]); and
a proximal portion (unlabeled, but portion proximal of 400/402 that is spaced from and proximal to 412), and
wherein the transceiver and the antenna are disposed between the intravascular sensor and the proximal portion along the length (as can be seen in Fig. 5) such that:
the transceiver and the antenna are positioned distal to and separate from the proximal portion (as can be seen in Fig. 5); and
the transceiver is configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) receive the intravascular data from the intravascular sensor via the at least one wire without the intravascular data crossing the proximal portion (as can be seen in Fig. 5).
Millett does not expressly disclose an electrical interface at the proximal portion such that the electrical interface forms part of the intravascular guidewire itself, wherein the electrical interface is configured to receive and transfer power only for the intravascular sensor and the transceiver.
However, Burkett’693 teaches an electrical interface (122) (Fig. 2) (para [0029]) at a proximal portion (as can be seen in Fig. 2) such that the electrical interface forms part of the intravascular guidewire itself (as can be seen in Fig. 2), wherein the electrical interface is configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) receive and transfer power only for the intravascular sensor and the transceiver (para [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Millet to include an electrical interface at the proximal portion such that the electrical interface forms part of the intravascular guidewire itself, wherein the electrical interface is configured to receive and transfer power only for the intravascular sensor and the transceiver, in view of the teachings of Burkett’693, because such a modification would just be another way of providing power to the components of the intravascular device.
For claim 2, Millett further discloses wherein the antenna extends toward the distal portion of the intravascular guidewire (para [0064]).
For claim 3, Millett further discloses wherein the antenna extends toward the proximal portion of the intravascular guidewire (para [0064]).
For claim 5, the embodiment relied upon above does not expressly disclose a connector configured to be coupled to and detached from the proximal portion of the intravascular guidewire.
However, another embodiment of Millett teaches a connector (316 and/or 320) (Fig. 3) configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) be coupled to and detached from the proximal portion of the intravascular guidewire (i.e., via 326, para [0053]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify the first relied upon embodiment of Millett to include a connector configured to be coupled to and detached from the proximal portion of the intravascular guidewire, in view of the teachings of another embodiment of Millett, for the obvious advantage of providing an interface by which to integrate with a patient interface module (see para [0053] of Millett).
For claim 7, Millett further discloses wherein the intravascular sensor comprises at least one of a pressure sensor or a flow sensor (para [0008]).
For claim 11, Millet further discloses wherein the transceiver is positioned within the proximal portion of the intravascular guidewire (as can be seen in Fig. 5) (Examiner’s Note: the length of the proximal portion not being defined in the claim).
For claim 14, Millet further discloses wherein the antenna extends from the transceiver (as can be seen in Fig. 5) and is spaced apart from an outer surface of the intravascular guidewire (as can be seen in Fig. 5).
For claim 17, Millet further discloses wherein the transceiver and the antenna are directly connected (as can be seen in Fig 5).
For claim 18, Miller further discloses wherein the transceiver is configured to use a pre-determined wireless communication protocol for the wireless transmission of the intravascular data via the antenna (para [0070]).
For claim 19, Miller further discloses wherein the transceiver and a portion of the antenna are longitudinally co-located along the length (as can be seen in Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 4, 8, 12-13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millett in view of Burkett’693, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0187874 to Burkett et al. (hereinafter “Burkett’874”).
For claim 4, Millett and Burkett’693 do not expressly disclose wherein the antenna is coiled around a portion of the intravascular guidewire.
However, Burkett’874 teaches wherein the antenna (“electrical conductors printed thereon … printed pattern is an antenna…,” para [0014]) is coiled around a portion of the intravascular guidewire (as can be seen in Fig. 5) (“…conductors 208, 210, 212, and 214 helically wrapped around shaft…,” para [0053]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Millett wherein the antenna is coiled around a portion of the intravascular guidewire, in view of the teachings of Burkett’874, because such a configuration is a suitable configuration of the antenna that would lead to the predictable result of being able to transmit data, which is what Millett’s antenna wants to do.
For claim 8, Millett and Burkett’693 do not expressly disclose wherein the electrical interface comprises: a first electrical contact positioned on an outer surface of the proximal portion; and a second electrical contact positioned on the outer surface of the proximal portion.
However, Burkett’874 teaches wherein a first electrical contact is positioned on an outer surface of the proximal portion and a second electrical contact is positioned on the outer surface of the proximal portion (i.e., 208, 210, 212, and/or 214) (see Figs. 5-11) (para [0053]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Millett wherein the electrical interface comprises: a first electrical contact positioned on an outer surface of the proximal portion; and a second electrical contact positioned on the outer surface of the proximal portion, in view of the teachings of Burkett’874, because such a modification would be substituting a contact interface for a wireless interface that would lead to the predictable result of transferring power.
For claim 12, Millet and Burkett’693 do not expressly disclose wherein the antenna extends from the transceiver and along an outer surface of the proximal portion of the intravascular guidewire.
However, Burkett’874 teaches wherein the antenna (“electrical conductors printed thereon … printed pattern is an antenna…,” para [0014]) extends along the length of an outer surface of core member (as can be seen in Fig. 5) (“[a]s shown the proximal ends of the conductors 208, 210, 212, and 214 are spaced apart along the length of the core member,” para [0053]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Millet wherein the antenna extends from the transceiver and along an outer surface of the proximal portion of the intravascular guidewire, in view of the teachings of Burkett’874, because such a configuration is a suitable configuration of the antenna that would lead to the predictable result of being able to transmit data, which is what Millett’s antenna wants to do.
For claim 13, Millet, as modified, further discloses wherein the antenna extends along the outer surface of the proximal portion such that a portion of the antenna is exposed to an ambient environment (as can be seen in Fig. 5 of Burkett’874) (para [0053] of Burkett’874).
For claim 16, Millet and Burkett’693 do not expressly disclose wherein the portion of the antenna longitudinally overlaps the transceiver along the length.
However, Burkett’874 teaches wherein the antenna (“electrical conductors printed thereon … printed pattern is an antenna…,” para [0014]) extends along the length of an outer surface of core member (as can be seen in Fig. 5) (“[a]s shown the proximal ends of the conductors 208, 210, 212, and 214 are spaced apart along the length of the core member,” para [0053]) and that a transceiver (110) (para [0048]) is in the middle of the core member (see Fig. 1) at a position that overlaps with the electrical conductors printed thereon (see Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Millet wherein the portion of the antenna longitudinally overlaps the transceiver along the length, in view of the teachings of Burkett’874, because such a configuration is a suitable configuration of the antenna that would lead to the predictable result of being able to transmit data, which is what Millett’s antenna wants to do.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millett in view of Burkett’693 and Burkett’874, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,632,121 to Johnson et al. (hereinafter “Johnson”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0150505 to Kaskoun et al. (hereinafter “Kaskoun”).
For claim 9, Millett, as modified, further discloses wherein a power source (409/658) source is configured to provide the power for the intravascular sensor and the transceiver (para [0073]).
Millet, Burkett’693, and Burkett’874 do not expressly disclose a connector, wherein the proximal portion of the intravascular guidewire is configured to be received within the connector, wherein the connector comprises a power source configured to be coupled to the first electrical contact and the second electrical contact of the electrical interface.
However, Johnson teaches a connector (24) (Fig. 1) (also generally see claim 14), wherein a proximal portion of a flexible elongate member (i.e., where 26, 52, and 54 are located of 12) (see Fig. 1) is configured to be received within a connector (i.e., within 24) (see Fig. 1) (also generally see claim 14) such that detachable connector contacts the outer surface of the proximal portion (as can be seen in Fig. 1) (also see Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Millett wherein the proximal portion of the flexible elongate member is configured to be received within a detachable connector such that detachable connector contacts the outer surface of the proximal portion, in view of the teachings of Johnson, because such a structure would be one way to realize the obvious advantage of being able to attach a device to the proximal end of the device in Millett (Examiner’s Note: Millett recognizes that other medical devices may be attached to the proximal end in some embodiments, see para [0028]-[0029] of Burkett).
Additionally, Kaskoun teaches a connector (130) (Fig. 4D) (para [0081]) (Examiner’s Note: the structures “433” being the ones that are attached and detached to other components) comprising a power source (437) (Fig. 4D) (para [0081]) configured to be coupled to the first electrical contact and the second electrical contact of the electrical interface (423/433) (see Figs. 4A-D).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Millett wherein the connector comprises a power source configured to be coupled to the first electrical contact and the second electrical contact of the electrical interface, in view of the teachings of Kaskoun, for the obvious advantage of being able to switch out the power supply to Millett’s device when the power starts running low.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millett in view of Burkett’693, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0018653 to Bashiri et al. (hereinafter “Bashiri”).
For claim 10, Millett and Burkett’693 do not expressly disclose wherein the electrical interface comprises: a first electrical contact coupled to a positive terminal of a power source; and a second electrical contact coupled to a negative terminal of the power source.
However, Bashiri teaches wherein the electrical interface comprises: a first electrical contact coupled to a positive terminal of a power source (38); and a second electrical contact coupled to a negative terminal of the power source (40).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Millett wherein the electrical interface comprises: a first electrical contact coupled to a positive terminal of a power source; and a second electrical contact coupled to a negative terminal of the power source, in view of the teachings of Bashiri, because such a modification would be substituting a contact interface for a wireless interface that would lead to the predictable result of transferring power.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millett in view of Burkett’693, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0148865 to Weber.
For claim 15, Millett and Burkett’693 do not expressly disclose wherein the antenna comprises a coating such that the antenna is protected from an ambient environment.
However, Bashiri teaches wherein an antenna (“antennae,” para [0038]) comprises a coating (“coating 705,” para [0038]) such that the antenna is protected from an ambient environment (para [0038]) (also see Fig. 2, which shows the antennae at the distal end and Fig. 7, which shows the coating at the distal end).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Millett wherein the antenna comprises a coating such that the antenna is protected from an ambient environment, in view of the teachings of Weber, for the obvious advantage of insulating the antenna for electrically conductive components that could potentially charge the antenna.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/3/26 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
In response, the amended claim language is being treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). That is, the amended claim language is construed as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the established corresponding structure in Applicant’s specification is “conductive contacts.” Burkett’693 also discloses “conductive contacts” at para [0030]. Therefore, Burkett’693 anticipates the claimed subject matter because it is the scope of the claim is “conductive contacts” and Burkett’693 teaches conductive contacts. It is also noted that Applicant’s specification identifies that conductive contacts are capable of performing the function of transferring power.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
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, Robert Chen can be reached on (571) 272-3672. 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.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791