DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment filed on 10/21/2025, No Claims have been cancelled, and Claim 1 and newly added Claims 2-20 are pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 10/21/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent 9,492,263, US Patent 10,321,924, and US Patent 11,648,021 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 10/21/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 in view of Martin have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 USC 103 is made in view of Martin.
Martin teaches “the petals 238 on the open ends 228 and 262 can interact to nest once the capturing portions 226 and 260 are moved sufficiently close to one another. The outward force caused by the retained obstruction provides a frictional interaction between adjacent petals/flanges 238 to maintain the nesting” in Paragraph 0078 and furthermore Martin teaches “In another example, one basket may be undersized relative to the other to improve nesting” in Paragraph 0078.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify distal basket to be undersized relative to the proximal basket, as taught by Martin, which would result the proximal basket directing the open expanded end of the distal basket radially inward as the two baskets are drawn together, for the advantage of improving nesting between the proximal and distal baskets while retaining the clot in between (Paragraph 0078).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim 1-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Martin (US PGPub 2009/0069828). The Examiner notes that Martin has an effective filing date of 09/10/2007 and the present application has an effective filing date of 12/10/2007.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Martin teaches a method for a clot within a body lumen of a patient, the method comprising (Figures 6A-6D):
introducing a proximal basket (260) and a distal basket (226) into the body lumen in a contracted condition (figure 6A; Paragraph 0089), wherein the proximal basket (260) and the distal basket (226) are configured to be spaced apart from one another (see Figure 6C; Paragraph 0092), each of the proximal (260) and distal baskets (226) comprising an open end communicating with an interior of the respective basket (as seen in Figure 6D-6E; Paragraph 0094), the open ends configured to be oriented towards one another (see Figures 6D-6E);
deploying the distal basket (226) such that the distal basket expands within the body lumen and the open end is disposed distal to the clot (2) to be removed (Figure 6B);
deploying the proximal basket (260) such that the proximal basket expands within the body lumen and the open end is disposed proximal to the clot (2) to be removed (see Figure 6C); and
directing at least one of the proximal (260) and distal baskets (226) towards the other to capture the clot through one or both of the open ends into interiors of one or both of the proximal and distal baskets (as seen in Figure 6C-6D the baskets are moving towards one another; Paragraph 0094);
Martin fails to disclose:
wherein the open end of the distal basket (226) is directed radially inwardly and received within the open end of the proximal basket (260) as the at least one of the proximal (260) and the distal baskets are advanced towards the other.
However, Martin teaches “the petals 238 on the open ends 228 and 262 can interact to nest once the capturing portions 226 and 260 are moved sufficiently close to one another. The outward force caused by the retained obstruction provides a frictional interaction between adjacent petals/flanges 238 to maintain the nesting” in Paragraph 0078 and furthermore Martin teaches “In another example, one basket may be undersized relative to the other to improve nesting” in Paragraph 0078.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify distal basket to be undersized relative to the proximal basket, as taught by Martin, which would result the proximal basket directing the open expanded end of the distal basket radially inward as the two baskets are drawn together, for the advantage of improving nesting between the proximal and distal baskets while retaining the clot in between (Paragraph 0078).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Martin teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the proximal basket (260) is introduced into the body lumen within a tubular member (102), the tubular member (102) constraining the proximal basket (260) in the contracted condition (Figure 6A and 6B; Paragraph 0089-0091).
Regarding Claim 3 and 13, Martin teaches the method of Claim 2, wherein deploying the proximal basket (260) comprises exposing the proximal basket (260) from the tubular member (102) within the body lumen, the proximal basket (260) resiliently expanding from the contracted condition to an expanded condition within the body lumen (Figures 6B-6C).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Martin teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the distal basket (226) is introduced into the body lumen within a tubular member (102), the tubular member (102) constraining the distal basket (226) in the contracted condition (Figure 6A).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Martin teaches the method of Claim 4, wherein deploying the distal basket (226) comprises exposing the distal basket (226) from the tubular member (102) within the body lumen, the distal basket (226) resiliently expanding from the contracted condition to an expanded condition within the body lumen (Figures 6A-6B).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Martin teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein, when the proximal basket (260) and the distal basket (226) are deployed, the open ends of the proximal and distal baskets contact a wall of the body lumen (Figure 6C; Paragraph 0059).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Martin teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein introducing the proximal basket (260) and the distal basket (226) into the body lumen comprises advancing the proximal basket (260) and the distal basket (226) over a guidewire (Figure 6A; Paragraph 0089-0090).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Martin teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising applying aspiration via a catheter (12; Figure 1A) to aspirate at least a portion of the clot (Paragraph 0039 discloses inflation and vacuum sources; Figure 1A).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Martin teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the distal basket comprises a closed end opposite the open end (Paragraph 0045; Figure 2D).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Martin teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein each of the proximal basket and the distal basket comprise a mesh structure (Paragraph 0043, 0055, 0066).
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 MOHAMED GAMIL GABR whose telephone number is (571)272-0569. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached on (571) 270-5953. 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.
MOHAMED GAMIL GABR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3771
/MOHAMED G GABR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771