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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/12/2026 has been entered.
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/12/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 21, 33, and 40 have been amended and claims 1-20 have been cancelled. Thus, claims 21-40 are presently pending in this application.
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 21-27, 29, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coyle et al. (US 6,966,890 B2) in view of Solar (US 5,474,537) and Smith et al. (US 20060058739 A1) and/or over Coyle in view of Solar, Smith and Ressemann et al. (US 5,466,222).
Regarding claim 21 Coyle discloses (fig. 1-4B) a catheter system for treating a treatment site within or adjacent to a vessel wall (angioplasty occurs in the vessel, see col. 4 ln. 30-39) or a heart valve, the catheter system comprising:
a balloon having 114 a balloon interior (see fig. 1 and col. 7 ln. 8-18);
an outer shaft 104 having an inner surface defining an outer shaft lumen (see fig. 1 and 4A-4B) and a distal end coupled to the balloon 114 (see col. 7 ln. 33-40); a guidewire 120 (see fig. 4A and col 7 ln. 33-40) and
an inflation tube 106 positioned between the outer surface of the guidewier 120 and the inner surface of the outer shaft 104 (see fig. 1 and 4A-4B), wherein the inflation tube 106 is configured to guide a flow of an inflation fluid into the balloon interior (see col. 8 ln. 20-24), the inflation tube 106 having an inflation lumen 222 (see fig. 4A), the inflation tube being movable between (i) an first configuration (configuration of fig. 4A) wherein the inflation lumen has a first cross-sectional area, and (ii) a second configuration (configuration of fig. 4B) wherein the inflation lumen has a second cross-sectional area that is less than the first cross-sectional area (see col. 8 ln. 4-19), the inflation tube 106 being at least partially formed from a first polymer (see col. 7 ln. 23-30).
Coyle is silent regarding an inner shaft having an outer surface and extending within at least a portion of the lumen of the outer shaft and the balloon interior, and having an inner surface defining an inner shaft lumen to receive a guidewire.
However Solar, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches (fig. 5-7) a balloon 5 having a balloon interior (see fig. 5); an outer shaft 3 having an inner surface defining an outer shaft lumen and a distal end coupled to the balloon 5 (see fig. 5); an inner shaft 21 having an outer surface and extending within at least a portion of the lumen of the outer shaft 3 and the balloon interior (see fig. 3), and having an inner surface defining an inner shaft lumen 22 to receive a guidewire 2 (see fig. 6-7 and col. 3 ln. 51-64); a collapsible inflation tube positioned adjacent the inner shaft lumen (see fig. 6-7 and col. 3 ln. 51-64).
To provide the device of Coyle with an inner shaft surrounding the guidewire that has an outer surface and extending within at least a portion of the lumen of the outer shaft and the balloon interior, and having an inner surface defining an inner shaft lumen to receive the guidewire would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teachings of Solar, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., one skilled in the art would have recognized that an inner shaft surrounding the guidewire would allow the device of Coyle to freely move and rotate the guidewire without disturbing the inflation lumen. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Coyle as modified is silent regarding the inflation tube having a second polymer that is different than the first polymer, the first polymer and the second polymer being thermally bonded to one another.
However Smith, in the analogous art of collapsible medical tubes, teaches (fig. 12-13) of a collapsible sheath comprising a second polymer (coating 52; see [0034]) that is different than a first polymer (see [0026]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Coyle as modified to have a second polymer that is different than the first polymer as taught by Smith, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of the sheath to remain collapsed when in that position (see Smith [0034]).
Coyle as modified is silent regarding the first polymer and the second polymer being thermally bonded to one another. The claimed phrase “the first polymer and the second polymer being thermally bonded to one another” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, that the tube is formed by thermally bonding two materials together. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
Thus, even though Coyle as modified is silent as to the process used to bond the polymer material, it appears that the product in Reference A would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product is made of a polymer.
Ressemann, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches that connections between polymer elements can be thermal bonding (see col. 6 ln. 18-24).
The claimed phrase “thermally bonded” means that the tube was made by thermal bonding.
Therefore, even if “thermally bonded” results in different structural characteristics of the end product than other molding methods, it still would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a “thermally bonded” material in Coyle as modified as claimed since Ressemann teaches that thermally bonded is recognized as a useful technique for connecting polymer elements.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Coyle as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 21. Coyle is silent regarding the inflation tube is biased toward the second configuration; the inflation tube is configured to be moved to the first configuration using fluid pressure.
However Solar further teaches (fig. 1-4) of an inflation tube 3 for a balloon, wherein the inflation tube is biased toward a second collapsed configuration (configuration of fig. 6; see col. 4 ln. 20-24); the inflation tube is configured to be moved to a first open configuration (configuration of fig. 7) using fluid pressure (col. 4 ln. 12-20).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Coyle to have the inflation tube is biased toward the second configuration; the inflation tube is configured to be moved to the first configuration using fluid pressure as taught by Solar, for the purpose of eliminating one of the steps of the procedure (collapsing the inflation tube).
Regarding claim 24, Coyle as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 21. Coyle further discloses (fig. 1-4B) the inflation tube 106 is biased toward the first configuration (see col. 8 ln. 9-24, a vacuum is required to collapse the inflation tube).
Regarding claim 25, Coyle as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 21. Coyle further discloses (fig. 1-4B) the inflation tube 106 is at least partially formed from one of, a plastic (see col. 7 ln. 23-30).
Regarding claim 26, Coyle as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 21. Coyle further discloses (fig. 1-4B) the inflation tube 106 includes a tube wall that varies in thickness (see fig. 4B, the wall thickness can be seen to taper and thus varries).
Regarding claim 27, Coyle as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 21. Coyle further discloses (fig. 1-4B) the inflation tube 106 is fully collapsible so that the second cross-sectional area of the inflation lumen is approximately equal to zero (see fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 29, Coyle as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 21. Coyle further discloses (fig. 1-4B) in the first configuration a cross-sectional shape of the inflation tube is substantially circular (see col. 3 ln. 39-60).
Regarding claim 31, Coyle as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 21. Coyle further discloses (fig. 1-4B) the inflation tube has a tube length, and the inflation tube is configured to move to the second configuration along at least a portion of the tube length (see fig. 4B and 8 ln. 9-24).
Regarding claim 32, Coyle as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 21. Coyle as modified further teaches the inflation tube has a tube length, and the inflation tube is thermally formed along at least a portion of the tube length (thermal bonding of the layers, see rejection for claim 1 above).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coyle in view of Solar and Smith and/or Coyle in view of Solar, Smith and Ressemann as applied to claim 21 above, as evidenced by Rogers et al. (US 20190046762 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Coyle as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 21. Coyle further discloses that the cross-sectional shape of the tube in the first configuration can be a circle (see col. 3 ln. 39-60) but does not specify the cross-sectional shape when the circular configuration is collapsed (in the second configuration a cross-sectional shape of the inflation tube is substantially elliptical).
The cross-sectional shape when the circular configuration is collapsed is known to be elliptical as evidenced by Rogers (a circular cross sectional shaped tube collapses into an elliptical cross sections shape see fig. 14A-14B and [0085]). Thus the circular configuration of Coyle has the clamed elliptical shape when in the second configuration.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coyle in view of Solar and Smith and/or Coyle in view of Solar, Smith and Ressemann as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Klein et al. (US 5,562,620).
Regarding claim 30, Coyle as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 21. Coyle as modified is silent regarding the inflation tube includes a tube adhesive so that the inflation tube is adherable to itself when the inflation tube is in the second configuration.
However Klein, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches that a compressed tube is adhered to itself with adhesive when in a compressed configuration (see col. 9 ln. 37-63).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Coyle to have the inflation tube includes a tube adhesive so that the inflation tube is adherable to itself when the inflation tube is in the second configuration e as taught by Klein, for the purpose of maintaining the tube in the collapsed configuration until fluid is delivered therethrough and it needs to expand (see Klein col. 9 ln. 37-63).
Claims 33-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solar in view of Coyle, Sullivan (US 5,209,730) and Smith and/or Solar in view of Coyle, Sullivan, Smith and Bacich et al. (US 5,810,776).
Regarding claim 33 Solar discloses (fig. 6-7) a catheter system for treating a treatment site within or adjacent to a vessel wall (see col. 1 ln. 18-39 and coll. 2 ln. 31-40), the catheter system comprising:
a balloon having a balloon interior (not shown in fig. 6-7, but element 5 in fig. 6, see col. 3 ln. 51-64);
an inner shaft 21 having an outer surface and extending within at least a portion of the balloon interior (see fig. 6-7 and col. 3 ln. 51-64); and
an inflation tube 3 positioned between the outer surface of the inner shaft 21 and the exterior (see fig. 6-7), wherein the inflation tube is configured to guide a flow of an inflation fluid into the balloon interior (see col. 4 ln. 12-20), the inflation tube having an inflation lumen 20, the inflation tube being movable between (i) an first configuration (configuration of fig. 7) wherein the inflation lumen has a first cross-sectional area, and (ii) a second configuration (configuration of fig. 6) wherein the inflation lumen has a second cross-sectional area that is less than the first cross-sectional area (see fig. 6-7, col. 3 ln. 51-56 and col. 4 ln. 12-24), the inflation tube 3 is at least partially formed of a polymer (see col. 3 ln. 65 – col. 4 ln. 11).
Solar is silent regarding an outer shaft having an inner surface defining an outer shaft lumen and a distal end coupled to the balloon; the inner shaft extending within at least a portion of the lumen of the outer shaft; the inflation tube positioned between the outer surface of the inner shaft and the inner surface of the outer shaft.
However Coyle, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (fig. 1-4B) a balloon having 114 a balloon interior (see fig. 1 and col. 7 ln. 8-18); an outer shaft 104 having an inner surface defining an outer shaft lumen (see fig. 1 and 4A-4B) and a distal end coupled to the balloon 114 (see col. 7 ln. 33-40); an inner shaft 120 having an outer surface and extending within at least a portion of the lumen of the outer shaft 104 and the balloon interior (see fig. 1 and 4A-4B); and an inflation tube 106 positioned between the outer surface of the inner shaft 120 and the inner surface of the outer shaft 104 (see fig. 1 and 4A-4B).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Solar to have an outer shaft having an inner surface defining an outer shaft lumen and a distal end coupled to the balloon; the inner shaft extending within at least a portion of the lumen of the outer shaft; the inflation tube positioned between the outer surface of the inner shaft and the inner surface of the outer shaft as taught by Coyle, for the purpose of having a shaft for protecting the inflation lumen to ensure desired flow therein.
Solar further discloses that the outer shaft can extend to the distal end of the balloon (see col. 3 ln. 58-64) but is silent regarding the inner shaft having an outer surface directly coupled to the balloon.
However Sullivan, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches (fig. 2) an outer shaft 14, a balloon 16, and an inner shaft 22 extending through the outer shaft 14 and the balloon 16 (see fig. 2), wherein the outer surface of the inner shaft 22 is directly coupled to the balloon 16 (see fig. 2 and col. 4 ln. 1-10).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Solar to have the inner shaft having an outer surface directly coupled to the balloon as taught by Sullivan, for the purpose of bonding the balloon to the inner shaft to seal the air in the balloon (see Sullivan col. 4 ln. 1-10).
Solar as modified is silent regarding the inflation tube having varying polymers.
However Smith, in the analogous art of collapsible medical tubes, teaches (fig. 12-13) of a collapsible sheath comprising a second polymer (coating 52; see [0034]) that is different than a first polymer (see [0026]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Solar as modified to have a the inflation comprise varying polymers as taught by Smith, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of the sheath to remain collapsed when in that position (see Smith [0034]).
Solar as modified is silent regarding the inflation tube including one or more thermal bonds that are configured to fuse extrusions of the varying polymers that at least partially form the inflation tube. The claimed phrase “one or more thermal bonds that are configured to fuse extrusions of the varying polymers that at least partially form the inflation tube” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, that the tube is formed by thermal bonding of extrusions of the varying polymers. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
Thus, even though Solar as modified is silent as to the process used to bond the polymer materials, it appears that the product in Reference A would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product is made of a polymer.
Bacich, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches that one or more thermal bonds that are configured to fuse extrusions of the varying polymers (see col. 21 ln. 1-17).
The claimed phrase “thermal bonds that are configured to fuse extrusions” means that the tube was made by thermal bonding extrusions.
Therefore, even if “thermal bonding extrusions” results in different structural characteristics of the end product than other molding methods, it still would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a “thermal bonding extrusions” technique in Solar as modified as claimed since Bacich teaches that thermal bonding extrusions is recognized as a useful technique for connecting polymer elements.
Regarding claim 34, Solar as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 33. Solar further discloses (fig. 6-7) the inflation tube 3 is biased toward the second configuration (see col. 4 ln. 20-24).
Regarding claim 35, Solar as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 33. Solar further discloses (fig. 6-7) the inflation tube 3 is configured to be moved to the first configuration using fluid pressure (see col. 4 ln. 12-20).
Regarding claim 36, Solar as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 33. Solar is silent regarding the inflation tube is biased toward the first configuration.
However Coyle further teaches (fig. 1-4B) the inflation tube 106 is biased toward the first configuration (see col. 8 ln. 9-24, a vacuum is required to collapse the inflation tube).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Solar as modified to have the inflation tube is biased toward the first configuration as taught by Coyle, for the purpose of having more room in the tube during delivery and being able to deliver fluid to the balloon whenever needed (see Coyle col. 8 ln. 9-24).
Regarding claim 37, Solar as modified as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 33. Solar further discloses (fig. 6-7) the inflation tube 3 is at least partially formed from a plastic (see col. 3 ln. 64 – col. 4 ln. 11).
Regarding claim 38, Solar as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 33. Solar is silent regarding the inflation tube includes a tube wall that varies in thickness.
Coyle further teaches (fig. 1-4B) the inflation tube 106 includes a tube wall that varies in thickness (see fig. 4B, the wall thickness can be seen to taper and thus varies).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Solar as modified to have the inflation tube includes a tube wall that varies in thickness as taught by Coyle, for the purpose of being able to fit the inflation lumen within a tube and maximize its size therein (see Coyle fig. 4A-4B).
Regarding claim 39, Solar as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 33. Solar further discloses (fig. 6-7) the inflation tube 3 is fully collapsible so that the second cross-sectional area of the inflation lumen is approximately equal to zero (see fig. 6).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coyle in view of Solar, Smith, Ressemann and Bacich.
Regarding claim 40 Coyle discloses (fig. 1-4B) a catheter system for treating a treatment site within or adjacent to a vessel wall (angioplasty occurs in the vessel, see col. 4 ln. 30-39) or a heart valve, the catheter system comprising:
a balloon having 114 a balloon interior (see fig. 1 and col. 7 ln. 8-18);
an outer shaft 104 having an inner surface defining an outer shaft lumen (see fig. 1 and 4A-4B) and a distal end coupled to the balloon 114 (see col. 7 ln. 33-40); a guide wire 120 having an outer surface and extending within at least a portion of the lumen of the outer shaft 104 and the balloon interior (see fig. 1 and 4A-4B); and
an inflation tube 106 positioned between the outer surface of the guide wire 120 and the inner surface of the outer shaft 104 (see fig. 1 and 4A-4B), wherein the inflation tube 106 is configured to guide a flow of an inflation fluid into the balloon interior (see col. 8 ln. 20-24), the inflation tube 106 having an inflation lumen 222 (see fig. 4A), the inflation tube being movable between (i) an first configuration (configuration of fig. 4A) wherein the inflation lumen has a first cross-sectional area, and (ii) a second configuration (configuration of fig. 4B) wherein the inflation lumen has a second cross-sectional area that is less than the first cross-sectional area (see col. 8 ln. 4-19), the inflation tube 106 being at least partially formed from a first polymer (see col. 7 ln. 23-30).
Coyle is silent regarding an inner shaft having an outer surface and extending within at least a portion of the lumen of the outer shaft and the balloon interior, and having an inner surface defining an inner shaft lumen to receive a guidewire.
However Solar, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches (fig. 5-7) a balloon 5 having a balloon interior (see fig. 5); an outer shaft 3 having an inner surface defining an outer shaft lumen and a distal end coupled to the balloon 5 (see fig. 5); an inner shaft 21 having an outer surface and extending within at least a portion of the lumen of the outer shaft 3 and the balloon interior (see fig. 3), and having an inner surface defining an inner shaft lumen 22 to receive a guidewire 2 (see fig. 6-7 and col. 3 ln. 51-64); a collapsible inflation tube positioned adjacent the inner shaft lumen (see fig. 6-7 and col. 3 ln. 51-64).
To provide the device of Coyle with an inner shaft surrounding the guidewire that has an outer surface and extending within at least a portion of the lumen of the outer shaft and the balloon interior, and having an inner surface defining an inner shaft lumen to receive the guidewire would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teachings of Solar, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., one skilled in the art would have recognized that an inner shaft surrounding the guidewire would allow the device of Coyle to freely move and rotate the guidewire without disturbing the inflation lumen. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Coyle as modified is silent regarding the inflation tube having a second polymer that is different than the first polymer, the first polymer and the second polymer being thermally bonded to one another.
However Smith, in the analogous art of collapsible medical tubes, teaches (fig. 12-13) of a collapsible sheath comprising a second polymer (coating 52; see [0034]) that is different than a first polymer (see [0026]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Coyle as modified to have a second polymer that is different than the first polymer as taught by Smith, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of the sheath to remain collapsed when in that position (see Smith [0034]).
Coyle as modified is silent regarding the first polymer and the second polymer being thermally bonded to one another. The claimed phrase “the first polymer and the second polymer being thermally bonded to one another” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, that the tube is formed by thermally bonding two materials together. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
Thus, even though Coyle as modified is silent as to the process used to bond the polymer material, it appears that the product in Reference A would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product is made of a polymer.
Ressemann, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches that connections between polymer elements can be thermal bonding (see col. 6 ln. 18-24).
The claimed phrase “thermally bonded” means that the tube was made by thermal bonding.
Therefore, even if “thermally bonded” results in different structural characteristics of the end product than other molding methods, it still would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a “thermally bonded” material in Coyle as modified as claimed since Ressemann teaches that thermally bonded is recognized as a useful technique for connecting polymer elements.
Coyle is silent regarding the inflation tube including one or more thermal bonds that are configured to fuse extrusions of the varying polymers that at least partially form the inflation tube. The claimed phrase “one or more thermal bonds that are configured to fuse extrusions of the varying polymers that at least partially form the inflation tube” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, that the tube is formed by thermal bonding of extrusions of the varying polymers. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
Thus, even though Coyle as modified is silent as to the process used to bond the polymer materials, it appears that the product in Reference A would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product is made of a polymer.
Bacich, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches that one or more thermal bonds that are configured to fuse extrusions of the varying polymers (see col. 21 ln. 1-17).
The claimed phrase “thermal bonds that are configured to fuse extrusions” means that the tube was made by thermal bonding extrusions.
Therefore, even if “thermal bonding extrusions” results in different structural characteristics of the end product than other molding methods, it still would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a “thermal bonding extrusions” technique in Coyle as modified as claimed since Bacich teaches that thermal bonding extrusions is recognized as a useful technique for connecting polymer elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Solar fails to cure the deficiencies of Coyle. The Office respectfully disagrees. Solar (embodiment of fig. 6-7) does in fact teach an inner shaft 21 for a guidewire as recited in claims 21 and 40.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 02/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 33 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Solar and Sullivan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE H SCHWIKER whose telephone number is (571)272-9503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am-4:00 pm.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at (571) 272-4695. 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.
/KATHERINE H SCHWIKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771