DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The claims filed on December 16th, 2025, have been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the Application. Claims 16-18 were previously withdrawn. The claim amendments overcome the previous claim objections and 112(b) rejections.
Response to Arguments
Examiner finds the arguments presented by Applicant regarding the objection to the drawings as persuasive, and withdraws the drawing objection.
Applicant's arguments filed December 16th, 2025, regarding the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the newly added claim limitation “the plurality of flexible bristles are configured to provide substantially all of the anchoring force for the embolisation device in the bodily lumen” is not disclosed by Ogawa (U.S. Patent No. 6,159,206) because Ogawa does not teach or suggest the fibers 28 are used to anchor the device and that not all fibers should be considered to function as anchoring bristles because a thrombus-promoting function is not a sufficient condition to also be anchoring. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Since the limitation uses the functional language “configured to,” Ogawa does not need to explicitly disclose that the plurality of flexible bristles provide the anchoring force for the embolisation device in the body lumen, and can satisfy the limitation by providing structure capable of carrying out the function. In Ogawa FIG. 6, the fibrous material 28 is shown protruding radially outward from the coil 16, and would be the first and only portion of the coil 16 to contact the body lumen. With no other part of the device protruding radially outward past the fibrous material, either in Ogawa or in Palermo (U.S. Patent No. 5,250,071) or in Wallace et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,941,888), the fibers would provide the entirety of the anchoring force for the embolisation device in the body lumen, even if that force is minimal.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “connecting mechanism” in claim 1 and “retracting element” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palermo (U.S. Patent No. 5,250,071) in view of Ogawa (U.S. Patent No. 6,159,206).
Regarding claim 1, Palermo discloses an embolisation device (100; FIG. 2; C4:L32-42) for promoting clot formation in a body lumen comprising two or more linearly connected sections (112), each section comprising one or more segments (116 and two of 104, 110, and 114) comprising a core (116), wherein:
each section is connected to an adjacent section such as to provide a pair of adjacent sections (FIG. 2), each pair of adjacent sections being connected to one another via one or more respective connecting mechanism (106; as indicated above, “connecting mechanism” is being interpreted under 112(f) because the generic modifier “mechanism” is being modified by the functional language “connecting” with no structure being disclosed to conduct the “connecting” function; the present Specification indicates on Page 10 that the connecting mechanism is an elongate element that connects sections, and since in Palermo, 106 is a control wire which connects 112s, satisfies the limitation); and
when the one or more segments are in a deployed configuration (FIG. 4: 100 has deployed from 120), each of the one or more connecting mechanism is selectively changeable from a first configuration attaching the adjacent sections (FIGs. 2 and 4: 106 attaches separate 116s), to a second configuration detaching the adjacent sections (FIG. 5: 106 has been removed, and 116 can separate from each other).
Palermo does not disclose the segments are bristle segments further comprising a plurality of flexible bristles extending at least radially outwardly from the core, the flexible bristles having a collapsed delivery configuration and an expanded deployed configuration in which the plurality of respective bristles extend at least radially outwardly from the core to anchor a respective bristle segment in a bodily lumen such that the plurality of flexible bristles are configured to provide substantially all of the anchoring force for the embolisation device in the bodily lumen.
Ogawa teaches in the same field of endeavor of embolic coil delivery systems (Abstract), and discloses an embolisation device (10; FIG. 6; C6:L36-46) for promoting clot formation in a body lumen comprising: two or more linearly connected sections (16A-16D), each section comprising one or more bristle segments (FIG. 6: each of 16A-16D is a bristle segment) comprising a core (FIG. 6: the body of each of 16A-16D) and a plurality of flexible bristles (28) extending at least radially outwardly from the core (FIG. 6: 28 extend radially out from the body of each of 16A-16D), the flexible bristles having a collapsed delivery configuration (C6:L47-61: when the wire device 10 is in microcatheter 30, the fibers 28 will be pressed down) and an expanded deployed configuration in which the bristles extend at least radially outwardly from the core to anchor the bristle segment in a bodily lumen (C6:L47-61: when 10 is deployed from 30, the fibers extend radially outward; FIG. 6) such that the plurality of flexible bristles are configured to provide substantially all of the anchoring force for the embolisation device in the bodily lumen (as discussed in the Response to Arguments above, since the functional language “configured to” is used, the bristles only need to be capable of being the anchoring force, and since in FIG. 6 the only part of 10 that would contact the bodily lumen that 10 is placed is 28, 28 will provide the entirety of any anchoring force) for the purpose of promoting the formation of thrombi (C6:L37-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the segments of Palermo to have bristles, as taught by Ogawa, for the purpose of promoting the formation of thrombi.
Regarding claim 2, Palermo as modified further discloses the connecting mechanism of the one or more connecting mechanisms is movable from the first configuration to the second configuration (FIGs. 4-5: 106 is withdrawn proximally to allow for 104 and 110 to detach from each other).
Regarding claim 3, Palermo as modified further discloses the connecting mechanism of the one or more connecting mechanisms is formed by an elongate element (FIG. 2: 106 is a control wire) slidably received by respective receiving elements (104, 110, and 114) of respective adjacent sections (FIGs. 2 and 4-5: 106 runs through the adjacent 104, 110, and 114), such that the elongate element is slidable by a predetermined distance between the first and second configurations (FIGs. 4-5: when 106 is withdrawn proximally be the combined length of 104 and 110, then the sections go from being secured to being detachable), and wherein in the second configuration the elongate element detaches from one of the receiving elements (FIGs. 4-5: once 104 detaches from 110, 104 is no longer connected to 106).
Regarding claim 4, Palermo as modified further discloses the embolisation device has a longitudinal axis (FIG. 2: when 100 is straight, 100 defines a longitudinal axis) and the receiving elements each comprise respective interlocking features (FIG. 2: 104, 110, and 114 are interlocking features), wherein in the first configuration the respective interlocking features interlock with one another in a lateral direction to inhibit relative displacement in the longitudinal direction between the adjacent sections (FIG. 4: 104 and 110 are interlocked to prevent relative movement in the longitudinal axis of 100), and the elongate element passes through both interlocking features in a longitudinal direction to inhibit relative lateral movement between the adjacent sections (FIG. 4: 106 passes through both 104 and 110 in the direction of 100, and prevents relative lateral movement between them).
Regarding claim 5, Palermo as modified further discloses the respective interlocking features each comprise a lip (107; FIG. 1B) and a lateral recess (108), wherein in the first configuration the respective lips are received by the lateral recess of the other respective interlocking features (FIG. 2: 110 and 114 have their lips 107 in the other’s lateral recess 108), and the elongate element passes through both lips in a longitudinal direction to inhibit relative lateral movement between the adjacent sections (FIG. 2: 106 passes through both 107 to prevent 110 and 114 from moving relative to each other).
Regarding claim 6, Palermo as modified further discloses a first of the receiving elements of a pair of receiving elements comprises a base (Annotated FIG. 1B below) longitudinally separated from the lip by the recess, the base having a hole extending therethrough having a longitudinally extending section (Annotated FIG. 1B: the hole in the base for 106 has a longitudinal dimension) and a laterally extending section (Annotated FIG. 1B: the hole in the base for 106 has a lateral dimension), wherein in the first configuration, the elongate element passes through the lip of the first receiving element (FIG. 2: 106 passes through the lip of 114), the lip of a second other receiving element (FIG. 2: 106 passes through the lip of 110), the longitudinally extending section of the hole (FIG. 2: 106 extends along the longitudinal dimension of the hole) and the laterally extending section of the hole (FIG. 2: 106 fills the lateral dimension of the hole).
PNG
media_image1.png
173
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Palermo as modified further discloses at least two of the one or more connecting mechanism is formed by the elongate element received by the plurality of receiving elements (FIG. 2: 106 connects all the sections 102 and 112 together) such that the elongate element is slidable by a plurality of predetermined distances to detach the sections at each predetermined distance (FIGs. 4-5: when 106 is withdrawn proximally be the combined length of 104 and 110, then the sections go from being secured to being detachable).
Regarding claim 11, Palermo discloses an embolisation section (100; FIG. 2; C4:L32-42) for promoting clot formation in a body lumen comprising two or more linearly connected sections (112), comprising one or more segments (116 and two of 104, 110, and 114), each segment comprising a core (116), wherein:
the section further comprises a receiving element (104, 110, and 114) configured to slidably receive a connecting mechanism (106) for connecting the section to an adjacent section (FIGs. 4-5: 106 slides within 104, 110, and 110); wherein the receiving element is configured to allow the connecting mechanism to slide between a first configuration attaching the section and the adjacent section (FIGs. 2 and 4: 106 attaches separate 116s), and a second configuration for detaching the section from the adjacent section (FIG. 5: 106 has been removed, and 116 can separate from each other).
Palermo does not disclose the segments are bristle segments further comprising a plurality of flexible bristles extending at least radially outwardly from the core, the flexible bristles having a collapsed delivery configuration and an expanded deployed configuration in which the plurality of respective bristles extend at least radially outwardly from the core to anchor a respective bristle segment in a bodily lumen such that the plurality of flexible bristles are configured to provide substantially all of the anchoring force for the embolisation device in the bodily lumen.
Ogawa teaches in the same field of endeavor of embolic coil delivery systems (Abstract), and discloses an embolisation device (10; FIG. 6; C6:L36-46) for promoting clot formation in a body lumen comprising: two or more linearly connected sections (16A-16D), each section comprising one or more bristle segments (FIG. 6: each of 16A-16D is a bristle segment) comprising a core (FIG. 6: the body of each of 16A-16D) and a plurality of flexible bristles (28) extending at least radially outwardly from the core (FIG. 6: 28 extend radially out from the body of each of 16A-16D), the flexible bristles having a collapsed delivery configuration (C6:L47-61: when the wire device 10 is in microcatheter 30, the fibers 28 will be pressed down) and an expanded deployed configuration in which the bristles extend at least radially outwardly from the core to anchor the bristle segment in a bodily lumen (C6:L47-61: when 10 is deployed from 30, the fibers extend radially outward; FIG. 6) such that the plurality of flexible bristles are configured to provide substantially all of the anchoring force for the embolisation device in the bodily lumen (as discussed in the Response to Arguments above, since the functional language “configured to” is used, the bristles only need to be capable of being the anchoring force, and since in FIG. 6 the only part of 10 that would contact the bodily lumen that 10 is placed is 28, 28 will provide the entirety of any anchoring force) for the purpose of promoting the formation of thrombi (C6:L37-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the segments of Palermo to have bristles, as taught by Ogawa, for the purpose of promoting the formation of thrombi.
Regarding claim 12, Palermo as modified further discloses the embolisation device is part of an embolisation delivery system (FIG. 3), further comprising:
a delivery catheter (120) for containing the embolisation device and having a distal delivery end (FIG. 3: 100 is within 120);
a delivery element (118) for delivering the embolisation device from the distal end of the delivery catheter (C4:L58-69: 118 is advanced through 120 to place 102 out of the distal end of 120 at the target site while remaining within 120 to allow 106 to be manipulated);
an actuator (122) for changing the connecting mechanism from the first configuration to the second configuration (C4:L43-57: 122 is used to move 106 axially within 120, which moves 106 from the first configuration in FIG. 4 extending across the sections to the second configuration in FIG. 5 disconnecting the sections); and
one or more user interfaces for operating the delivery element and the actuator (FIG. 3: the proximal end of 122 acts as a user interface for a user to operate 120 and 126).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palermo in view of Ogawa, and in further view of Shrivastava et al. (Pub. No. 2012/0041470).
Regarding claim 13, Palermo as modified discloses the invention according to claim 12, as discussed above. Palermo does not disclose when the connecting mechanism comprises the elongate element slidable between first and second configurations, the actuator comprises a retracting element (as noted above, this limitation is being interpreted under 112(f) because the generic placeholder “element” is being modified by the functional language “retracting” without any structure being claimed which performs the “retracting” function, and on Page 23 of the Present Specification, the retracting element is described as a rotatable wheel; therefore, a rotatable wheel will be considered sufficient to meet the claim limitation) operable by a user to slide the one or more connecting mechanisms from the first to the second configuration.
Shrivastava et al. teaches an intravascular implant delivery system (10; [0207]; FIGs. 1A-1B) comprising connecting mechanism (52) and a retracting element (20; [0267] 20 can be a variety of different external components, including a wheel which is rotated to provide an actuating motion, which satisfies the limitation under the 112(f) interpretation as discussed above) operable by a user to slide the connecting mechanism from the first to the second configuration (FIGs. 8A-8C: 52 is pulled back by actuation of 20, which moves 52 proximally and allows for the deployment of the coil implant 90) for the purpose of allowing the operator to retract the connecting mechanism after positioning the system at a target site and thereby deploy the implant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Palermo to have a retracting element, as taught by Shrivastava et al., for the purpose of allowing the operator to retract the connecting mechanism after positioning the system at a target site and thereby deploy the implant.
Regarding claim 14, Palermo as modified further discloses the delivery system comprises a feedback mechanism (C5:L4-11: radiopaque markers and radiography are used to determine the positioning of the connecting mechanisms) for indicating to the user that the connecting mechanism has slid a sufficient distance to cause detachment (C5:L4-11: the markers help the user know how much of the device has been delivered).
Claim(s) 1, 8-9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,941,888) in view of Ogawa.
Regarding claim 1, Wallace discloses an embolisation device (FIG. 2; C8:L16-23) for promoting clot formation in a body lumen comprising two or more linearly connected sections (212 and corresponding 222, 224, and 226), each section comprising one or more segments (212) comprising a core (FIG. 2: the body of 212), wherein:
adjacent sections are connected via a respective connecting mechanism (224); and
when the segments are in a deployed configuration (FIG. 2: 212 are outside of the catheter), each respective connecting mechanism is selectively changeable from a first configuration attaching the adjacent sections (FIG. 2 and C9:L20-28: 224 are intact and connect 212 to each other), to a second configuration detaching the adjacent sections (C9:L20-28: 224 are electrolytically dissolved to detach 212 from each other).
Wallace et al. does not disclose the segments are bristle segments further comprising a plurality of flexible bristles extending at least radially outwardly from the core, the flexible bristles having a collapsed delivery configuration and an expanded deployed configuration in which the plurality of respective bristles extend at least radially outwardly from the core to anchor a respective bristle segment in a bodily lumen such that the plurality of flexible bristles are configured to provide substantially all of the anchoring force for the embolisation device in the bodily lumen.
Ogawa teaches in the same field of endeavor of embolic coil delivery systems (Abstract), and discloses an embolisation device (10; FIG. 6; C6:L36-46) for promoting clot formation in a body lumen comprising: two or more linearly connected sections (16A-16D), each section comprising one or more bristle segments (FIG. 6: each of 16A-16D is a bristle segment) comprising a core (FIG. 6: the body of each of 16A-16D) and a plurality of flexible bristles (28) extending at least radially outwardly from the core (FIG. 6: 28 extend radially out from the body of each of 16A-16D), the flexible bristles having a collapsed delivery configuration (C6:L47-61: when the wire device 10 is in microcatheter 30, the fibers 28 will be pressed down) and an expanded deployed configuration in which the bristles extend at least radially outwardly from the core to anchor the bristle segment in a bodily lumen (C6:L47-61: when 10 is deployed from 30, the fibers extend radially outward; FIG. 6) such that the plurality of flexible bristles are configured to provide substantially all of the anchoring force for the embolisation device in the bodily lumen (as discussed in the Response to Arguments above, since the functional language “configured to” is used, the bristles only need to be capable of being the anchoring force, and since in FIG. 6 the only part of 10 that would contact the bodily lumen that 10 is placed is 28, 28 will provide the entirety of any anchoring force) for the purpose of promoting the formation of thrombi (C6:L37-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the segments of Wallace et al. to have bristles, as taught by Ogawa, for the purpose of promoting the formation of thrombi.
Regarding claim 8, Wallace et al. as modified further discloses at least one connecting mechanism of the one or more connecting mechanisms is formed by an electrolytic element attaching adjacent sections (C8:L59-60: 224 are made of electrolytic elements that can be dissolved by electric current), the electrolytic element being electrically connected to a proximal end of the embolisation device (C10:L50-58 and C11:L27-31: the proximal end of the device has power supply 518, which is connected to the targeted electrolytically dissolvable links, such as 522 and 224, by core wire 512), and operable to disintegrate by electrolysis in the body lumen to detach the respective pair of adjacent sections by applying an electric current to the electrolytic element (C10:L50-58: the power from 518 is used to electrolytically sever the targeted link by applying an electric current), at a current amplitude, a voltage and for a duration of time such that the electrical energy supplied to the electrolytic element is above a disintegration energy of the electrolytic element (C10:L50-58 and C11:L27-31: the current used is of a sufficient power and for a sufficient time to dissolve the targeted link).
Regarding claim 9, Wallace et al. as modified further discloses the electrical connection between the proximal end of the embolisation device to the electrolytic element is electrically isolated from the cores and bristles of the embolisation device (C6:L16-24: the insulative link 108, equivalent to 222, insulates the vaso-occlusive members 102 and 104 from 106, just as 222 does for 212 from 224).
Regarding claim 12, Wallace et al. as modified further discloses the embolisation device is part of an embolisation delivery system (FIG. 2), further comprising:
a delivery catheter (202) for containing the embolisation device and having a distal delivery end (FIG. 2: the device comes out of the distal end of 202);
a delivery element (512; FIG. 5) for delivering the embolisation device from the distal end of the delivery catheter (C10:L52-55: 512 is advanced through the catheter 506 to deploy the vaso-occlusive members 502);
an actuator (518) for changing the connecting mechanism from the first configuration to the second configuration (C11:L27-30: 518 is the power supply for the current which electrolytically disintegrates the link between the vaso-occlusive devices to deploy them); and
one or more user interfaces for operating the delivery element and the actuator (Examiner notes that a core wire such as 512 that is advanced and retracted has a proximal end that a user interacts with to move the wire, and a power supply such as 518 will need to have an on/off switch or button to prevent pre-mature disintegration during deployment).
Claim(s) 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace et al. in view of Ogawa, and in further view of Horowitz et al. (Pub. No. 2023/0015203).
Regarding claim 10, Wallace et al. as modified by Ogawa discloses the invention as claimed in claim 8, as discussed above, and further discloses the connecting mechanism is formed by electrolytic elements (C8:L59-60: 224 are made of electrolytic elements that can be dissolved by electric current) electrically connected to the proximal end of the embolisation device (C10:L50-58 and C11:L27-31: the proximal end of the device has power supply 518, which is connected to the targeted electrolytically dissolvable links, such as 522 and 224, by core wire 512). Wallace et al. does not disclose the disintegration energy of each electrolytic element is different.
Horowitz et al. teaches an embolic delivery device (FIG. 1; [0144]) comprising a connecting mechanism (100) formed with multiple electrolytic elements ([0144] 100 can comprise several breakable connections 108 that can be electrically disintegrated by application of an electrical current), where the disintegration energy of each electrolytic element is different ([0144] 108 can have different release thresholds) for the purpose of allowing the breakable connections to be sequentially released ([0144]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Wallace et al. to have the disintegration energy of each electrolytic element be different, as taught by Horowitz et al., for the purpose of allowing the links to be sequentially released.
Regarding claim 15, Wallace et al. as modified by Ogawa discloses the invention as claimed in claim 13, as discussed above. Wallace et al. does not disclose when the connecting mechanisms are electrolytic elements, the actuator is operable to apply a variable positive current and voltage selectable by the user via the user interface.
Horowitz et al. teaches an embolic delivery device (FIG. 1; [0144]) comprising a connecting mechanism (100) formed with multiple electrolytic elements ([0144] 100 can comprise several breakable connections 108 that can be electrically disintegrated by application of an electrical current), where the disintegration energy of each electrolytic element is different ([0144] 108 can have different release thresholds) for the purpose of allowing the breakable connections to be sequentially released ([0144]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Wallace et al. to have the disintegration energy of each electrolytic element be different, as taught by Horowitz et al., for the purpose of allowing the links to be sequentially released. Examiner will then note that, for Wallace et al. as modified by Horowitz et al. to have sequential release of the links by varying electrical currents, the user must be able to vary the current and voltage being output by the actuator, which will be done by the user interface of the actuator.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RYAN MCGINNITY whose telephone number is (571)272-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-5:30 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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at 571-272-7134. 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.
/JRM/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/KATHLEEN S HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771