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 .
Detailed Action
This is in response to the amendment filed 12/22/2025.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21, 23-25, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Number 4,030,503 (Clark, III).
Regarding claim 21, 23, 25 Clark, III discloses as shown in Figure 5, a thrombus engagement tool configured to be advanced through a catheter and to engage thrombus, the thrombus engagement tool comprising: a rotatable core (flexible spring wire 8, see col. 1, lines 38-46) having a proximal end and a distal end; a thrombus engagement tip on the distal end of the rotatable core, the thrombus engagement tip comprising: a helical thread (helix 12, see col. 1, lines 47-56); an advance segment (rounded knob 10, see col. 1, lines 38-45) distal to the helical thread having a larger diameter than the rotatable core; and a trailing segment (flexible shaft 4, see col. 1 lines 38-46) proximal to the helical thread; wherein the advance segment has a maximum outside diameter that is smaller than a maximum outside diameter of the helical thread capable of facilitating crossing of the thrombus with the advance segment and engage of the thrombus with the helical thread, and wherein the helical thread, the advance segment, and the trailing segment each extend radially outward from the rotatable core, a handle (handle 6, see col. 1, lines 47-56) on the proximal end of the rotatable core capable of hand turning the rotatable core, the rotatable core is a solid wire, where the advanced segment comprises an atraumatic tip (rounded knob 10), where the helical thread does not extend over the advanced segment or the trailing segment, the outer periphery substantially conforming to a surface of a cylinder.
Regarding claim 24, the limitations of claim 10 are directed towards a product by process (“wherein the advance segment, the helical thread, and the trailing segment are all molded onto the rotatable core.”). ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
“[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).
The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979).
In this there is no significant structure implied by the molding on process as described by the applicant. Accordingly, the Office interprets Clark, III as disclosing the same.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18, 27, 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 4,030,503 (Clark, III) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2008/0312672 (Bonnette et al.)
Regarding claims 1, 6, 8, 12, 13, 18, 38 Clark, III discloses as shown in Figure 5, a thrombus engagement system comprising a thrombus engagement tool configured to be advanced through a catheter and to engage thrombus, the thrombus engagement tool comprising: a rotatable core (flexible spring wire 8, see col. 1, lines 38-46) having a proximal end and a distal end; a thrombus engagement tip on the distal end of the rotatable core, the thrombus engagement tip comprising: a helical thread (helix 12, see col. 1, lines 47-56); an advance segment distal (rounded knob 10, see col. 1, lines 38-45) to the helical thread; and a trailing segment proximal (flexible shaft 4, see col. 1 lines 38-46) to the helical thread; and wherein the helical thread, the advance segment, and the trailing segment each extend radially outward from the rotatable core, a handle (handle 6, see col. 1, lines 47-56) on the proximal end of the rotatable core capable of hand turning the rotatable core, the rotatable core is a solid wire, where the advanced segment comprises an atraumatic tip (rounded knob 10), where the helical thread does not extend over the advanced segment or the trailing segment, the outer periphery substantially conforming to a surface of a cylinder, where the helical thread does not extend over the advance segment or the trailing segment.
Clark, III fails to disclose the outside diameter of the helical thread being no more than about 60% or 40% of the inside diameter of the catheter.
Bonnette et al. from the same field of endeavor teaches a similar tool as shown in Figure 10, where in combination with a catheter (catheter 32 with tapered tip 36, see paragraph [0042]) having an inside diameter, wherein an outside diameter of a tool (guidewire 120, see paragraph [0044]) used for the same purpose of clearing an obstruction in the body as disclosed by the helical thread in Clark, III is no more than about a percentage of the inside diameter of the catheter, is recognized as a result effective variable for purpose of ensuring fluid flow past the tool to facilitate providing a path through the chronic total occlusion. See paragraphs [0009], [0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed Clark, III et al. to include the catheter 32 with tapered tip 36 and size it such that it had an inside diameter, wherein an outside diameter of the helical thread is no more than about 60% of the inside diameter of the catheter, or wherein the outside diameter of the helical thread is no more than about 40% of the inside diameter of the catheter because it would only require discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art in order to provide a path for fluid to flow past the helical thread to facilitate providing a path through the chronic total occlusion. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations of claim 10 are directed towards a product by process (“wherein the advance segment, the helical thread, and the trailing segment are all molded onto the rotatable core.”). ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
“[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).
The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979).
In this there is no significant structure implied by the molding on process as described by the applicant. Accordingly, the Office interprets Clark, III as disclosing the same.
Regarding claim 16, Clark, III fails to disclose the thrombus engagement tip has an axial length within a range of from about 15 mm to about 30 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thrombus engagement tool disclosed by Clark, III such that the thrombus engagement tip has an axial length within a range of from about 15 mm to about 30 mm as matter of engineering design choice.
Applicant has not disclosed that spacing the length of the tip provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. See paragraph [0073] of the specification. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Clark, III’s tip, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the spacing taught by Clark, III or the claimed 15 mm to about 30 mm length because both spacing dimensions would perform the same function of providing a tip length from falling-out equally well considering relative dimensions disclosed.
Regarding claim 27, Clark, III fails to disclose the outside diameter of the helical thread being no more 40% of the inside diameter of the catheter.
Bonnette et al. from the same field of endeavor teaches a similar tool as shown in Figure 10, where in combination with a catheter (catheter 32 with tapered tip 36, see paragraph [0042]) having an inside diameter, wherein an outside diameter of a tool (guidewire 120, see paragraph [0044]) used for the same purpose of clearing an obstruction in the body as disclosed by the helical thread in Clark, III is no more than about a percentage of the inside diameter of the catheter, is recognized as a result effective variable for purpose of ensuring fluid flow past the tool to facilitate providing a path through the chronic total occlusion. See paragraphs [0009], [0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed Clark, III et al. to include the catheter 32 with tapered tip 36 and size it such that it had an inside diameter, wherein an outside diameter of the helical thread is no more than about 40% of the inside diameter of the catheter because it would only require discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art in order to provide a path for fluid to flow past the helical thread to facilitate providing a path through the chronic total occlusion. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 5, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 4,030,503 (Clark, III) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2008/0312672 (Bonnette et al.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2006/0135962 (Kick et al.)
Regarding claim 5, Clark et al. III fails to disclose a first radiopaque marker under the advance segment a second radiopaque maker under the trailing segment.
Kick et al., from a related field of endeavor teaches a similar tool as shown in figure 16, which includes a first and second radiopaque maker (two radiopaque markers 1620, 1622, 1624, and 1626, see paragraph [0083]) for the purpose of tracking an advance segment and trailing segment. See paragraph [0083].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool disclosed by Clark et al. III to include one of radiopaque markers 1620, 1622, 1624, and 1626 on the advanced and trailing segments in order to track those segements, a predictable use of known components with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; MPEP § 2143.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tool disclosed by Clark, III in view of Kick such that the first and second markers were underneath the advance segment and the trailing segment because it would only require the rearrangement of parts without changing how the device operates (it would still provide a marker) or because it is obvious to try. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) or see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Attaching the markers to the advance segment and trailing segment (which is what the art discloses) can only be done in a certain number of ways (within the inner lumen, embedded so they are beneath the other surface, on top of the exterior surface) and it is the position of the Office that embedding the markers such they were underneath at least one of the advance segment and the trailing segment represents choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 19, 20 Clark et al. III fails to disclose a position indicator carried by the rotatable core, the position indicator comprises a distal end of a tube surrounding the rotatable core.
Kick et al., from a related field of endeavor teaches a similar tool as shown in figure 16, which includes a position indicator (one of radiopaque markers 1620, 1622, 1624, and 1626, see paragraph [0083]) carried by the rotatable core, wherein the position indicator comprises a distal end of a tube surrounding the rotatable core, for the purpose of tracking the rotatable core. See paragraph [0083].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool disclosed by Clark to include one of radiopaque markers 1620, 1622, 1624, and 1626 and other of the other radiopaque markers 1620, 1622, 1624, and 1626 such that it was carried by the rotatable core, where the position indicator comprises a distal end of a tube surrounding the rotatable core in order to track the rotatable core, a predictable use of known components with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; MPEP § 2143.
Claim(s) 11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 4,030,503 (Clark, III) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0137584 (Urbanski et al.)
Regarding claim 11, Clark et al. III fails to disclose the rotatable core is cannulated.
Urbanski et al., from a related field of endeavor taches a similar rotatable core as shown in Figure 1 where the rotatable core is cannulated for the purpose of accommodating contrast media. See paragraph [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool disclosed by Clark, III by cannulating the rotatable core as taught by Urbanski et al. in order to configure it to accommodate contrast media, a predictable use of known components with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; MPEP § 2143.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 4,030,503 (Clark, III)
Regarding claim 26 Clark, III fails to disclose the thrombus engagement tip has an axial length within a range of from about 15 mm to about 30 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thrombus engagement tool disclosed by Clark, III such that the thrombus engagement tip has an axial length within a range of from about 15 mm to about 30 mm as matter of engineering design choice.
Applicant has not disclosed that spacing the length of the tip provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. See paragraph [0073] of the specification. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Clark, III’s tip, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the spacing taught by Clark, III or the claimed 15 mm to about 30 mm length because both spacing dimensions would perform the same function of providing a tip length from falling-out equally well considering relative dimensions disclosed.
Claim(s) 22, 28, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 4,030,503 (Clark, III) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2006/0135962 (Kick et al.)
Regarding claim 22, Clark et al. III fails to disclose a first radiopaque marker under the advance segment a second radiopaque maker under the trailing segment.
Kick et al., from a related field of endeavor teaches a similar tool as shown in figure 16, which includes a first and second radiopaque maker (two radiopaque markers 1620, 1622, 1624, and 1626, see paragraph [0083]) for the purpose of tracking an advance segment and trailing segment. See paragraph [0083].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool disclosed by Clark et al. III to include one of radiopaque markers 1620, 1622, 1624, and 1626 and other of the other radiopaque markers 1620, 1622, 1624, and 1626 such that it was carried by the rotatable core, a predictable use of known components with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claim 28, 29 Clark et al. III fails to disclose a position indicator carried by the rotatable core, the position indicator comprises a distal end of a tube surrounding the rotatable core.
Kick et al., from a related field of endeavor teaches a similar tool as shown in figure 16, which includes a position indicator (one of radiopaque markers 1620, 1622, 1624, and 1626, see paragraph [0083]) carried by the rotatable core, wherein the position indicator comprises a distal end of a tube surrounding the rotatable core, for the purpose of tracking the rotatable core. See paragraph [0083].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool disclosed by Clark to include one of radiopaque markers 1620, 1622, 1624, and 1626 and other of the other radiopaque markers 1620, 1622, 1624, and 1626 such that it was carried by the rotatable core, where the position indicator comprises a distal end of a tube surrounding the rotatable core in order to track the rotatable core, a predictable use of known components with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; MPEP § 2143.
Claim(s) 30, 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 4,030,503 (Clark, III) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2008/0021408 (Jacobsen et al.)
Regarding claim 30, 32-34 Regarding claim 30 Clark, III discloses as shown in Figure 5, a thrombus engagement tool configured to be advanced through a catheter and to engage thrombus, the thrombus engagement tool comprising: a rotatable core (flexible spring wire 8, see col. 1, lines 38-46) having a proximal end and a distal end, the rotatable core comprising a solid wire; a thrombus engagement tip on the distal end of the rotatable core, the thrombus engagement tip comprising: a helical thread (helix 12, see col. 1, lines 47-56); an advance segment (rounded knob 10, see col. 1, lines 38-45) distal to the helical thread, wherein the advance segment tapers in a distal direction, and a trailing segment (flexible shaft 4, see col. 1 lines 38-46) proximal to the helical thread; wherein the helical thread, advanced segment, and the trailing segment each extend radially outward from the solid wire; wherein the advance segment has a maximum outside diameter that is smaller than a maximum outside diameter of the helical thread capable of facilitating crossing of the thrombus with the advance segment and engage of the thrombus with the helical thread, and wherein the helical thread, the advance segment, and the trailing segment each extend radially outward from the rotatable core, a handle (handle 6, see col. 1, lines 47-56) on the proximal end of the rotatable core capable of hand turning the rotatable core, the rotatable core is a solid wire, where the advanced segment comprises an atraumatic tip (rounded knob 10), where the helical thread does not extend over the advanced segment or the trailing segment, the outer periphery substantially conforming to a surface of a cylinder.
Clark, III fails to disclose wherein the trailing segment tapers in a proximal direction.
Jacobsen et al., from a related field of endeavor teaches a similar tool as shown in Figure 24, wherein the trailing segment tapers in a proximal direction for the purpose of minimize or avoid a substantial change in stiffness. See paragraph [0123].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the trailing segment to taper in a proximal direction in order to minimize or avoid a substantial change in stiffness, a predictable use of known components with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claim 33, the limitations of claim 10 are directed towards a product by process (“wherein the advance segment, the helical thread, and the trailing segment are all molded onto the rotatable core.”). ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
“[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).
The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979).
In this there is no significant structure implied by the molding on process as described by the applicant. Accordingly, the Office interprets Clark, III as disclosing the same.
Regarding claim 35 Clark, III fails to disclose the thrombus engagement tip has an axial length within a range of from about 15 mm to about 30 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thrombus engagement tool disclosed by Clark, III such that the thrombus engagement tip has an axial length within a range of from about 15 mm to about 30 mm as matter of engineering design choice.
Applicant has not disclosed that spacing the length of the tip provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. See paragraph [0073] of the specification. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Clark, III’s tip, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the spacing taught by Clark, III or the claimed 15 mm to about 30 mm length because both spacing dimensions would perform the same function of providing a tip length from falling-out equally well considering relative dimensions disclosed.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 4,030,503 (Clark, III) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2008/0021408 (Jacobsen et al.) as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2006/0135962 (Kick et al.)
Regarding claim 30, Clark et al. III fails to disclose a first radiopaque marker under the advance segment a second radiopaque maker under the trailing segment.
Kick et al., from a related field of endeavor teaches a similar tool as shown in figure 16, which includes a first and second radiopaque maker (two radiopaque markers 1620, 1622, 1624, and 1626, see paragraph [0083]) for the purpose of tracking an advance segment and trailing segment. See paragraph [0083].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool disclosed by Clark et al. III to include one of radiopaque markers 1620, 1622, 1624, and 1626 in order to track the advance and trailing segments, a predictable use of known components with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; MPEP § 2143.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tool disclosed by Clark, III in view of Kick such that the first and second markers were underneath the advance segment and the trailing segment because it would only require the rearrangement of parts without changing how the device operates (it would still provide a marker) or because it is obvious to try. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) or see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Attaching the markers to the advance segment and trailing segment (which is what the art discloses) can only be done in a certain number of ways (within the inner lumen, embedded so they are beneath the other surface, on top of the exterior surface) and it is the position of the Office that embedding the markers such they were underneath at least one of the advance segment and the trailing segment represents choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 4,030,503 (Clark, III) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2008/0021408 (Jacobsen et al.) as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2008/0312672 (Bonnette et al.)
Regarding claim 36, Clark, III fails to disclose the outside diameter of the helical thread being no more than about 60% or 40% of the inside diameter of the catheter.
Bonnette et al. from the same field of endeavor teaches a similar tool as shown in Figure 10, where in combination with a catheter (catheter 32 with tapered tip 36, see paragraph [0042]) having an inside diameter, wherein an outside diameter of a tool (guidewire 120, see paragraph [0044]) used for the same purpose of clearing an obstruction in the body as disclosed by the helical thread in Clark, III is no more than about a percentage of the inside diameter of the catheter, is recognized as a result effective variable for purpose of ensuring fluid flow past the tool to facilitate providing a path through the chronic total occlusion. See paragraphs [0009], [0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed Clark, III et al. to include the catheter 32 with tapered tip 36 and size it such that it had an inside diameter, wherein an outside diameter of the helical thread is no more than about 60% of the inside diameter of the catheter, or wherein the outside diameter of the helical thread is no more than about 40% of the inside diameter of the catheter because it would only require discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art in order to provide a path for fluid to flow paths the helical thread to facilitate providing a path through the chronic total occlusion. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 37, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 4,030,503 (Clark, III) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2008/0021408 (Jacobsen et al.) as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2006/0135962 (Kick et al.)
Regarding claims 37, 38 Clark et al. III fails to disclose a position indicator carried by the rotatable core, the position indicator comprises a distal end of a tube surrounding the rotatable core.
Kick et al., from a related field of endeavor teaches a similar tool as shown in figure 16, which includes a position indicator (one of radiopaque markers 1620, 1622, 1624, and 1626, see paragraph [0083]) carried by the rotatable core, wherein the position indicator comprises a distal end of a tube surrounding the rotatable core, for the purpose of tracking the rotatable core. See paragraph [0083].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool disclosed by Clark to include one of radiopaque markers 1620, 1622, 1624, and 1626 and other of the other radiopaque markers 1620, 1622, 1624, and 1626 such that it was carried by the rotatable core, where the position indicator comprises a distal end of a tube surrounding the rotatable core in order to track the rotatable core, a predictable use of known components with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; MPEP § 2143.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/22/2025 with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1, 3-13, 16-38 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD G LOUIS whose telephone number is 571-270-1965. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9:30 – 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Jackie Ho at 571-272-4696. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD G LOUIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771