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 .
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 06/24/2026.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 12, 16, 18, and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are being examined in this Office Action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/24/2026 has been entered.
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 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein at least one strand comprises at least one stainless steel filament and at least one tungsten filament”. It is unclear how one filament can be stainless steel if all four filaments are tungsten as previously recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets claim 3 to mean that a second strand comprises at least one stainless steel filament and at least one tungsten filament.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “wherein at least one strand comprises at least one stainless steel filament or at least one tungsten filament”. It is unclear how one filament can be stainless steel if all four filaments are tungsten as previously recited in claim 16. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets claim 3 to mean that a second strand comprises at least one stainless steel filament and at least one tungsten filament.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosiengfiao et al. (US 7713259 B2, herein Gosiengfiao) in view of Boismier (US 7955313 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Gosiengfiao discloses a microcatheter (Fig. 1, Col. 1 Lines 14-17) comprising:
an elongated shaft (12) having a distal end (16) and a proximal end (14), the elongated shaft including:
an outer layer formed of a polymer (outer polymeric layer 32);
an inner layer formed of a polymer (inner polymeric layer 30); and
a middle layer formed of a braid (38) having a plurality of strands (40, Fig. 2, Col. 3 Lines 46-48) made of a metal filament (Fig. 3A, Col. 4 Lines 3-5) with an outer diameter of less than 0.0009" (Col.6 Lines 40-41), the braid achieving at least a 70% surface area coverage relative to an outer surface of the inner layer (Fig. 2, “A reinforcing structure or layer 38 formed of multiple strands 40 is disposed between the inner and outer polymeric layers 30, 32, and 36, respectively” – Col. 4 Lines 59-61, “The outer layer 32 of the proximal shaft section 18 … may extend over a length of about 40 to 100% of the total length of the catheter” – Col. 4 Lines 62 65, Examiner interprets that since the reinforcing structure 38 is disposed circumferentially between the inner and outer layers in Fig. 2 and the outer layer 32 extends to 100% the length of the catheter, the reinforcing structure 38 covers greater than 70% of the outer surface area of the inner layer 30).
Gosiengfiao does not expressly disclose wherein the strands include at least four metal filaments;
wherein at least one of the plurality of strands includes four tungsten filaments; and a distal polymeric tip attached to the distal end of the elongated shaft.
Boismier teaches wherein the strands include at least four metal filaments (50, Fig. 3, Col. 6 Lines 29-33);
wherein at least one of the plurality of strands includes four tungsten filaments (Col. 4 Lines 11-17); and
a distal polymeric tip attached to the distal end of the elongated shaft (Col. 2 Lines 59-62).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the braid of the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao wherein the strands include at least four metal filaments; wherein at least one of the plurality of strands includes four tungsten filaments; and a distal polymeric tip attached to the distal end of the elongated shaft as taught by Boismier so that the microcatheter may have better characteristics in response to torque and patient safety (Boismier, Col. 1 Lines 12-17).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier discloses the microcatheter of claim 1 wherein at least one strand comprises at least one stainless steel filament and at least one tungsten filament (Boismier, Col. 4 Lines 11-14, Col. 6 Lines 64-67).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao wherein at least one strand comprises at least one stainless steel filament and at least one tungsten filament as taught by Boismier in order to impact different properties, such as tensile strength, into the braid (Boismier, Col. 4 Lines 54-61).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier discloses the microcatheter of claim 1 wherein the filaments have an outer diameter of 0.00075" (Gosiengfiao, Col. 6 Lines 37-42).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier discloses the microcatheter of claim 1 wherein the elongated shaft provides a torque response of at least 0.9:1 (Gosiengfiao, Fig. 1).
Because modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier teaches that the structure and materials are substantially identical to those recited in the claim, the performance characteristic would be obviously optimized to the same result.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention that the elongated shaft disclosed by Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier provides a torque response of at least 0.9:1. Achieving a torque response of at least 0.9:1 would have been a predictable result of using the equivalent braid structure taught by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier teaches the microcatheter of claim 1 wherein the elongated shaft provides a torque response of at least 0.95:1 (Gosiengfiao, Fig. 1).
Because modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier discloses that the structure and materials are substantially identical to those recited in the claim, the performance characteristic would be obviously optimized to the same result.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention that the elongated shaft disclosed by modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier provides a torque response of at least 0.95:1. Achieving a torque response of at least 0.95:1 would have been a predictable result of using the equivalent braid structure taught by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier discloses the microcatheter of claim 1 wherein the braid comprises 12 to 20 strands (Gosiengfiao, Col. 3 Lines 45-50) each having four metal filaments (Boismier, 50, Fig. 3, Col. 6 Lines 29-31) having an outer diameter of 0.0006 to less than 0.0009” (Gosiengfiao, Col. 6 Lines 37-42).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the braid of the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao so that it includes a braid having a plurality of strands each having four metal filaments as taught by Boismier so that the microcatheter braid may have better physical characteristics (Boismier, Col. 1 Lines 12-17).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier discloses the microcatheter of claim 10 wherein the braid has 16 strands (Gosiengfiao, Col. 3 Lines 45-50).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier discloses the microcatheter of claim 10 wherein the filaments have an outer diameter of 0.00075” (Gosiengfiao, Col. 6 Lines 40-41).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier discloses the microcatheter of claim 1 wherein each strand consists of four (Boismier, Col. 6 Lines 29-36) round metal filaments (Boismier, Col. 4 Line 66 through Col. 5 Line 1).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao wherein each strand consists of four round metal filaments as taught by Boismier so that the braid may have better physical characteristics (Boismier, Col. 1 Lines 12-17).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier discloses the microcatheter of claim 1 wherein the elongated shaft has a burst pressure in the range of 1000 to 3000 psi (Gosiengfiao, Fig. 1).
Because modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier discloses that the structure and materials are substantially identical to those recited in the claim, the performance characteristic would be obviously optimized to the same result.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention that the elongated shaft disclosed by modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier has a burst pressure in the range of 1000 to 3000 psi. Achieving a burst pressure in the range of 1000 to 3000 psi would have been a predictable result of using the equivalent braid structure taught by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier discloses the microcatheter of claim 14 wherein the elongated shaft has a burst pressure greater than 1200 psi (Gosiengfiao, Fig. 1).
Because modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier discloses that the structure and materials are substantially identical to those recited in the claim, the performance characteristic would be obviously optimized to the same result.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention that the elongated shaft disclosed by modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier has a burst pressure greater than 1200 psi. Achieving a burst pressure greater than 1200 psi would have been a predictable result of using the equivalent braid structure taught by the prior art.
Claim(s) 2, 16, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier, further in view of Hiroshige et al. (Pub. No. US 20140214006 A1, herein Hiroshige).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier discloses the microcatheter of claim 1.
Modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier does not expressly disclose wherein the braid is formed in a two over, two under configuration.
Hiroshige teaches wherein the braid is formed in a two over, two under configuration (Paragraph [0028]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microcatheter disclosed by modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier wherein the braid is formed in a two over, two under configuration as taught by Hiroshige to tune mechanical properties such as torque response, pushing response, and pressure resistance (Hiroshige, Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding Claim 16, Gosiengfiao discloses a microcatheter (Fig. 1, Col. 1 Lines 14-17) comprising:
an elongated shaft (12) having a distal end (16) and a proximal end (14), the elongated shaft including:
an outer layer formed of a polymer (outer polymeric layer 32);
an inner layer formed of a polymer (inner polymeric layer 30); and
a middle layer formed of a braid (38) having a plurality of strands (40, Fig. 2, Col. 3 Lines 46-48) made of a filament (Fig. 3A, Col. 4 Lines 3-5) each being a round metal (Fig. 3A) with an outer diameter of 0.00075" or less (Col. 6 Lines 40-41), the braid achieving at least a 70% surface area coverage relative to the inner layer (Fig. 2, “A reinforcing structure or layer 38 formed of multiple strands 40 is disposed between the inner and outer polymeric layers 30, 32, and 36, respectively” – Col. 4 Lines 59-61, “The outer layer 32 of the proximal shaft section 18 … may extend over a length of about 40 to 100% of the total length of the catheter” – Col. 4 Lines 62 65, examiner interprets that since the reinforcing structure 38 is disposed circumferentially between the inner and outer layers in Fig. 2 and the outer layer 32 extends to 100% the length of the catheter, the reinforcing structure 38 covers greater than 70% of the outer surface area of the inner layer 30);
Gosiengfiao does not expressly disclose wherein a plurality of strands has four filaments; wherein at least one of the plurality of strands includes four tungsten filaments;
wherein the braid is formed in a two over, two under configuration; and
a distal polymeric tip attached to the distal end of the elongated shaft; wherein the elongated shaft provides a torque response of at least 0.9:1.
Boismier teaches wherein a of plurality strands has four filaments each (50, Fig. 3, Col. 6 Lines 29-31); and
wherein at least one of the plurality of strands includes four tungsten filaments (Col. 4 Lines 11-17); and
a distal polymeric tip attached to the distal end of the elongated shaft (Col. 2 Lines 59-62).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao wherein a plurality of strands has four filaments; wherein at least one of the plurality of strands includes four tungsten filaments; and a distal polymeric tip attached to the distal end of the elongated shaft as taught by Boismier so that the microcatheter may have better characteristics in response to torque and patient safety (Boismier, Col. 1 Lines 12-17).
Modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier does not expressly disclose wherein the braid is formed in a two over, two under configuration.
Hiroshige teaches wherein the braid is formed in a two over, two under configuration (Paragraph [0028]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microcatheter disclosed by modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier wherein the braid is formed in a two over, two under configuration as taught by Hiroshige to tune mechanical properties such as torque response, pushing response, and pressure resistance (Hiroshige, Paragraph [0003]).
Modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier and Hiroshige discloses a microcatheter as recited above wherein the elongated shaft provides a torque response of at least 0.9:1 (Gosiengfiao, Fig. 1).
Because modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier and Hiroshige discloses that the structure and materials are substantially identical to those recited in the claim, the performance characteristic would be obviously optimized to the same result. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention that the elongated shaft disclosed by modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier and Hiroshige provides a torque response of at least 0.9:1. Achieving a torque response of at least 0.9:1 would have been a predictable result of using the equivalent braid structure taught by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier and Hiroshige discloses the microcatheter of claim 16 wherein at least one strand comprises at least one stainless steel filament or at least one tungsten filament (Boismier, Col. 4 Lines 11-14, Col. 6 Lines 64-67).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microcatheter disclosed by modified Gosiengfiao in view of Hiroshige wherein at least one strand comprises at least one stainless steel filament and at least one tungsten filament as taught by Boismier in order to impact different properties, such as tensile strength, into the braid (Boismier, Col. 4 Lines 54-61).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier and Hiroshige discloses the microcatheter of claim 16 wherein the braid comprises 12 to 20 strands (Gosiengfiao, Col. 3 Lines 45-50) each having four metal filaments (Boismier, 50, Fig. 3, Col. 6 Lines 29-31) having an outer diameter of 0.0006 to 0.00075” (Gosiengfiao, Col. 6 Lines 37-42).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the braid of the microcatheter disclosed by modified Gosiengfiao in view of Hiroshige so that it includes a braid having a plurality of strands each having four metal filaments as taught by Boismier so that the microcatheter braid may have better physical characteristics (Boismier, Col. 1 Lines 12-17).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier further in view of Hewitt et al. (Pub. No. US 20040153049 A1, herein Hewitt).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier discloses the microcatheter of claim 1.
Modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier does not expressly disclose wherein the elongated shaft has an outer diameter of less than 3 French, and an inner diameter in the range of 0.025 to 0.027”.
Hewitt teaches wherein the elongated shaft has an outer diameter of less than 3 French, and an inner diameter in the range of 0.025 to 0.027” (Paragraph [0007]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microcatheter disclosed by modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier wherein the elongated shaft has an outer diameter of less than 3 French, and an inner diameter in the range of 0.025 to 0.027” as taught by Hewitt so that the microcatheter may pass through small diameter vessels and arteries (Hewitt, Paragraph [0009]).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier, further in view of Keith et al. (US 6841214 B1, herein Keith).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier discloses the microcatheter of claim 1.
Modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier does not expressly disclose wherein the braid is in the range of 100 to 140 picks per inch (PPI).
Keith teaches where the braid is in the range of 100 to 140 picks per inch (PPI) (Col. 2 Lines 3-5).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier so that the braid is in the range of 100 to 140 picks per inch (PPI) as taught by Keith to achieve a desired balance between torque transmission, flexibility, and kink resistance (Keith, Col. 6 Lines 28-36).
Regarding Claim 9, Modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier and Keith discloses the microcatheter of claim 8 wherein the braid is around 120 PPI (Keith, Col. 2 Lines 3-5).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microcatheter disclosed by modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier so that the braid is around 120 PPI as taught by Keith to achieve a desired balance between torque transmission, flexibility, and kink resistance (Keith, Col. 6 Lines 28-36).
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier, Hiroshige, and Keith.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier and Hiroshige discloses the microcatheter of claim 16.
Modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier and Hiroshige does not expressly disclose wherein the braid is in the range of 100 to 140 picks per inch (PPI).
Keith teaches wherein the braid is in the range of 100 to 140 picks per inch (PPI) (Col. 2 Lines 3-5).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier and Hiroshige wherein the braid is in the range of 100 to 140 picks per inch (PPI) as taught by Keith to achieve a desired balance between torque transmission, flexibility, and kink resistance (Keith, Col. 6 Lines 28-36).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier, Hiroshige, and Keith discloses the microcatheter of claim 18 wherein the braid is around 120 PPI (Keith, Col. 2 Lines 3-5).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microcatheter disclosed by modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier and Hiroshige so that the braid is around 120 PPI as taught by Keith to achieve a desired balance between torque transmission, flexibility, and kink resistance (Keith, Col. 6 Lines 28-36).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 24, 2026 have been fully considered.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that:
“Claims 5, 8-12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ) second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the Applicant regards as the invention. In essence, the rejection appears to be related to the use of the term "about" in the claims. While we disagree with the rejection, the Applicant has elected to remove the term "about" in the interest of furthering prosecution in a timely manner. The Applicant respectfully submits that these amendments overcome the rejection.”
This argument is persuasive and the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection for claims 5, 8-12, and 18-20 have been withdrawn.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that:
“Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gosiengfiao et al. (US 7713259) in view of Boismier (US 7955313). The Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claim 1 is amended to recite that at least one of the plurality of strands includes four tungsten filaments. The cited art, taken either alone or in combination, does not appear to teach or suggest this feature. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 and those claims depending therefrom are patentable over the cited art.”
This argument is not persuasive for the following reasons:
Amended Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein at least one of the plurality of strands includes four tungsten filaments”, however Boismier teaches wherein the braid can include metal filaments formed of any suitable material such as stainless steel and tungsten (Col. 4 Lines 11-17). Examiner is interpreting that one of the reinforcement layers (46) can be made of four tungsten filaments.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the braid of the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao wherein at least one of the plurality of strands includes four tungsten filaments as taught by Boismier so that the microcatheter may have better characteristics such as kink resistance or flexibility (Boismier, Col. 1 Lines 12-17).
In regards to Applicant’s argument that:
“Claims 2, 3, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier, further in view of Hiroshige et al. (US 2014/0214006). The Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, for the reasons set forth above, the Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is patentable over Gosiengfiao and Boismier. Hiroshige does not appear to overcome the shortcomings of the cited art. Consequently, the Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is patentable over the combination of Gosiengfiao,
Boismier, and Hiroshige, to the extent that such a combination is even possible. Because claims 2-3 depend from claim 1, they are also patentable for the same reasons as claim 1 and because they add significant elements to distinguish them further from the art.
This argument is not persuasive for the following reasons:
Amended Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein at least one of the plurality of strands includes four tungsten filaments”, however Boismier teaches wherein the braid can include metal filaments formed of any suitable material such as stainless steel and tungsten (Col. 4 Lines 11-17). Examiner is interpreting that one of the reinforcement layers (46) can be made of four tungsten filaments.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the braid of the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao wherein at least one of the plurality of strands includes four tungsten filaments as taught by Boismier so that the microcatheter may have better characteristics such as kink resistance or flexibility (Boismier, Col. 1 Lines 12-17).
In regards to Applicant’s argument that:
“Regarding claims 16-17 and 20, claim 16 is similarly amended to recite that at least one of the plurality of strands includes four tungsten filaments. For at least reasons similar to those set forth above in relation to claim 1, the Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 16 and those claims depending therefrom are patentable over the cited art.
This argument is not persuasive for the following reasons:
Amended Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein at least one of the plurality of strands includes four tungsten filaments”, however Boismier teaches wherein the braid can include metal filaments formed of any suitable material such as stainless steel and tungsten (Col. 4 Lines 11-17). Examiner is interpreting that one of the reinforcement layers (46) can be made of four tungsten filaments.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the braid of the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao wherein at least one of the plurality of strands includes four tungsten filaments as taught by Boismier so that the microcatheter may have better characteristics such as kink resistance or flexibility (Boismier, Col. 1 Lines 12-17).
In regards to Applicant’s argument that:
“Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier, further in view of Hewitt et al. (US 2004/0153049). The Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
For the reasons set forth above, the Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is patentable over Gosiengfiao and Boismier. Hewitt does not appear to overcome the shortcomings of the cited art.”
This argument is not persuasive for the following reasons:
Amended Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein at least one of the plurality of strands includes four tungsten filaments”, however Boismier teaches wherein the braid can include metal filaments formed of any suitable material such as stainless steel and tungsten (Col. 4 Lines 11-17). Examiner is interpreting that one of the reinforcement layers (46) can be made of four tungsten filaments.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the braid of the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao wherein at least one of the plurality of strands includes four tungsten filaments as taught by Boismier so that the microcatheter may have better characteristics such as kink resistance or flexibility (Boismier, Col. 1 Lines 12-17).
In regards to Applicant’s argument that:
“Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier, further in view of Keith et al. (US 6841214). Claims 18 and 19 are rejected on this same ground. The Applicant respectfully traverses the rejections.
For the reasons set forth above, the Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1 and 16 are patentable over Gosiengfiao and Boismier. “
This argument is not persuasive for the following reasons:
Amended Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein at least one of the plurality of strands includes four tungsten filaments”, however Boismier teaches wherein the braid can include metal filaments formed of any suitable material such as stainless steel and tungsten (Col. 4 Lines 11-17). Examiner is interpreting that one of the reinforcement layers (46) can be made of four tungsten filaments.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the braid of the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao wherein at least one of the plurality of strands includes four tungsten filaments as taught by Boismier so that the microcatheter may have better characteristics such as kink resistance or flexibility (Boismier, Col. 1 Lines 12-17).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark Golovan whose telephone number is (571)272-2119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-4:30pm Alt. Fri off.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at 571-270-1744. 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.
/MARK GOLOVAN/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/CHELSEA E STINSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights