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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
This Office action is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 7/2/2026. Each argument and/or amendment directed towards a maintained rejection is addressed below. Rejections/objections not repeated herein have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, with respect to Applicant’s claim amendments made in view of the previous 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-9, alleging that Martinez fails to disclose the specific limitations cited in the three bullet points (see page 9 of Applicant’s arguments) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is the Examiner’s position that Martinez discloses the newly amended portions of the detachment coupler (as shown in annotated Fig. 2 below). Martinez further discloses the newly amended portions of the pusher (as shown in annotated Fig. 2 below). Finally, Martinez still further discloses its proximal opening expanding (at tabs 52) during insertion of the detachment tip (32) ([0035]; tabs 52 expressly deform/flex/rotate to expand open), and retraction to a closed position with the detachment tip (32) within the detachment tip cavity (50) (as shown in Fig. 2; [0035]; tabs 52 also expressly deform/flex/rotate to retract to close, as expressly depicted). For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
357
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-11, appearing to allege and repeat the above arguments (for the 102 rejections) but now concerning the 103 rejections of Martinez in view of Gandhi have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Concerning the disclosed structures of the primary reference to Martinez, the Examiner repeats the counterarguments provided above and the express disclosure provided in annotated Fig. 2 above. It is unclear, but Applicant appears to possibly be further arguing Martinez missing a “locking” feature or function. It is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., a locking feature) is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 11-13, appearing to allege and repeat the above arguments (for the 102 rejections) but now concerning the 103 rejections of Martinez in view of Gandhi and Carter have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Concerning the disclosed structures of the primary reference to Martinez, the Examiner repeats the counterarguments provided above and the express disclosure provided in annotated Fig. 2 above. Applicant further argues (see page 13) that “[n]owhere in Martinez does it disclose that the deflectable locking tabs 52 are used when the distal head 32 is inserted in the socket 50.” It is the Examiner’s position that Martinez expressly discloses tabs 52 deflecting radially outward as the wider diameter distal head 32 is passed through the narrower diameter inlet formed between the inner ramped surfaces of tabs 52 (as expressly shown in annotated Fig. 2 above; [0035]; radially outward deflection of tabs 52 expressly disclosed). For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 (and thereby dependent claims 11-13 and 16-17) is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, there is an apparent minor typographical error in line 15 at “the push wire” (wherein line 6 of the claim introduced “a pusher wire”).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (and thereby dependent claims 2-5 and 8-9) recites the limitation "the inlet" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 (and thereby dependent claims 11-13 and 16-17) recites the limitation "the inlet" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 10-11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martinez et al. (US 2012/0109160).
Martinez discloses (see Figs. 1-2 and 13-16) a detachment coupler mechanism comprising the following claim limitations:
(claim 10) A detachment coupler mechanism comprising: a detachment coupler (42/48, Figs. 1-2) having a detachment tip cavity (50, Fig. 2) with a proximal opening (as shown between tabs 52) having a proximal ramped portion, a reduced diameter portion, and a distal ramped portion coupled to the detachment tip cavity (50) (as shown in annotated Fig. 2 below), and a slot or cut on each side of the cavity (i.e., one or more slots or cuts expressly shown in Figs. 1-2 between tabs 52 forming cavity 50) configured to (i.e., capable of) allow the proximal opening to flex open and closed ([0035]; tabs 52 expressly composed of resilient material that allows tabs 52 to flex both radially inward and radially outward; [0045]; wherein proximal movement of the distal head 32 deflects resilient tabs 52 outwardly; “resilience” is defined as “the capability of a body to recover its size and shape after deformation caused especially by compressive stress”, see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resilience); a pusher having a pusher wire (22, Figs. 1-2) with a distal detachment tip (32, Figs. 1-2) configured for insertion through the proximal opening and retainment within the detachment tip cavity (50) (as expressly shown in Figs. 1-2), the detachment tip (32) includes a tapered distal end and a tapered proximal end (as shown in annotated Fig. 2 below), wherein the slots or cuts expand the proximal opening to an insertion position during insertion when the tapered distal end of the detachment tip (32) engages the proximal ramped portion of the inlet and retract to a closed position when the detachment tip (32) is within the detachment tip cavity (50) to retain the detachment tip during implant delivery (as shown in Figs. 1-2; [0035]; tabs 52 expressly composed of resilient material that allows tabs 52 to flex both radially inward and radially outward); and a puller (24, Figs. 1-2 and 15-16) configured to (i.e., capable of) apply a distal force against the detachment coupler (42/48) to assist in detaching the detachment tip (32) from the detachment tip cavity (50) (as shown in Figs. 1-2 and 15-16; [0046]; puller 24 expressly disclosed to provide a counterforce on the proximal housing 42 when retracting pusher wire 22), wherein when the puller (24) applies the distal force to the detachment coupler (42/48) (as shown in Figs. 1-2 and 15-16; [0046]), the push wire (22) can apply an opposite proximal force to withdraw the detachment tip (32) from the detachment tip cavity (50) ([0032]-[0035]; [0046]);
PNG
media_image1.png
357
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(claim 11) wherein during withdrawal when the tapered proximal end of the detachment tip (32) engages the distal ramped portion of the inlet the proximal opening is configured to (i.e., capable of) expand open and retract closed when the withdrawal of the detachment tip (32) is complete (as shown in Figs. 1-2; [0035]; [0045]; as discussed in claim 10 above, the resilient material of the flexible tabs 52 is plastically deformable expressly allowing for radially outward deflection to allow for passage of the tip 32 therethrough and also expressly allowing for radially inward deflection);
(claim 16) wherein the detachment tip (32) within the detachment tip cavity (50) permits axial movement through a delivery catheter (24, Figs. 1-2) ([0032]-[0034]; detachment coupler mechanism expressly disclosed for operation and use through catheters, endoscopes and the like); and
(claim 17) wherein the detachment tip (32) is configured to (i.e., capable of) rotate freely within the detachment coupler and does not require an external force to remain secured (as shown in Figs. 1-2; [0035]; tabs 52 are resilient and readily flex thereby tip 3 is fully capable of rotating therein, and tabs 52 are biased to retain the tip 32 therein without an external force).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez et al. (US 2012/0109160) in view of Gandhi et al. (US 6,478,773).
Martinez discloses (see Figs. 1-2 and 15-16) a detachment coupler mechanism comprising the following claim limitations:
(claim 1) A detachment coupler mechanism comprising: an implant (44, Figs. 1-2) coupled with a detachment coupler (42/48, Figs. 1-2) having a detachment tip cavity (50, Fig. 2) with a proximal opening (as shown between tabs 52) having a proximal ramped portion, a reduced diameter portion, and a distal ramped portion coupled to the detachment tip cavity (50) (as shown in annotated Fig. 2 below), and a slot or cut (i.e., a slot or cut expressly shown in Figs. 1-2 between tabs 52 forming cavity 50) on each side of the cavity (50) configured to (i.e., capable of) allow the proximal opening to expand open and retract close ([0035]; tabs 52 expressly composed of resilient material that allows tabs 52 to flex radially inward and radially outward; [0045]; wherein proximal movement of the distal head 32 deflects resilient tabs 52 outwardly; “resilience” is defined as “the capability of a body to recover its size and shape after deformation caused especially by compressive stress”, see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resilience); a pusher having a pusher wire (22, Figs. 1-2) coupled with a distal detachment tip (32, Figs. 1-2) configured for insertion through the proximal opening and retainment within the detachment tip cavity (50) (as expressly shown in Figs. 1-2), the detachment tip (32) includes a tapered distal end and a tapered proximal end (as shown in annotated Fig. 2 below); wherein the proximal opening is configured to (i.e., capable of) expand to an insertion position during insertion when the tapered distal end of the detachment tip (32) engages the proximal ramped portion of the inlet, and retract to a closed position when the detachment tip (32) is within the detachment tip cavity (50) to retain the detachment tip during implant delivery (as shown in Figs. 1-2; [0035]; [0045]); and a puller (24, Figs. 1-2 and 15-16) configured to (i.e., capable of) assist in detaching the detachment tip (32) from the detachment coupler (42/48) (as shown in Figs. 1-2 and 15-16; [0046]; puller 24 expressly disclosed to provide a counterforce on the proximal housing 42 when retracting pusher wire 22);
PNG
media_image1.png
357
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(claim 4) wherein the puller (24) is configured to (i.e., capable of) apply a distal force against the implant coupler (42/48) (as shown in Figs. 1-2 and 15-16; [0046]; puller 24 expressly disclosed to provide a counterforce on the proximal housing 42 when retracting pusher wire 22) while the push wire (22) applies a proximal force to withdraw the detachment tip (32) from the detachment tip cavity (50) ([0032]-[0035]; [0046]);
(claim 5) wherein the proximal opening is configured to (i.e., capable of) expand open during withdrawal when the tapered proximal end of the detachment tip (32) engages the distal ramped portion of the inlet and retract closed when the withdrawal of the detachment tip (32) is complete (as shown in Figs. 1-2; [0035]]; tabs 52 expressly composed of resilient material that allows tabs 52 to flex both radially inward and radially outward);
(claim 8) wherein inserting the detachment tip (32) within the detachment tip cavity (50) permits axial movement of the pusher (22) and implant (44) ([0032]-[0036]; axial movement of the pusher 22 and implant 40 expressly provides for actuation of the teeth 58 and rack 54 of the implant 44); and
(claim 9) wherein the detachment tip (32) is configured to (i.e., capable of) rotate freely within the detachment coupler and does not require an external force to remain secured (as shown in Figs. 1-2; [0035]; tabs 52 are resilient and readily flex thereby tip 3 is fully capable of rotating therein, and tabs 52 are biased to retain the tip 32 therein without an external force).
Martinez, as applied above, discloses a detachment coupler mechanism comprising all the limitations of the claim except for the implant comprising an embolic coil. Gandhi teaches a similar detachable vasoocclusive device that can comprise either a detachable surgical clip (col. 1, lines 29-34) and/or a detachable embolic coil (44, Fig. 3; col. 1, lines 29-34 and 57-60). Accordingly, Gandhi teaches that it is known that a detachable surgical clip and a detachable embolic coil are elements that are functional equivalents for providing a detachment mechanism for delivering one or more intravascular vasoocclusive devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have substituted the detachable embolic coil taught by Gandhi for the detachable surgical clip of Martinez because both elements were known equivalents for providing a detachment mechanism for delivering one or more intravascular vasoocclusive devices within the vascular interventional art. The substitution would have resulted in the predictable results of providing a detachment mechanism for delivering one or more intravascular vasoocclusive devices to the device Martinez in view of Gandhi.
Claim(s) 2-3, 12-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez in view of Gandhi as applied to claims 1, 4 and 8-9 above and/or Martinez as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Carter et al. (US 2008/0051721).
Martinez in view of Gandhi and/or Martinez, as applied above respectively, discloses a detachment coupler mechanism comprising all the limitations of the claim except for wherein the slot or cut includes a "T" cut having a length L, width W and height H, wherein the force/friction strength to expand the proximal opening is modified by increasing or decreasing a length L of the "T" cut, wherein decreasing the length L of the "T" cut increases the force/friction strength and increasing the length L of the "T" cut decreases the force/friction strength.
However, Carter teaches (see Figs. 3A and 6B) a similar detachment coupler mechanism comprising either an enlarged distal head (see Fig. 3A) or a “T” cut having a length L, width W and height H (see Fig. 6B) wherein the force/friction strength to expand the proximal opening is modified by increasing or decreasing the length L of the "T" cut, wherein decreasing the length L of the "T" cut increases the force/friction strength and increasing the length L of the "T" cut decreases the force/friction strength (it is noted that changing one or more dimensions of the structure and/or cuts is not affirmatively claimed and/or adding/removing material from a living hinge will alter the material characteristics as claimed). Accordingly, Carter teaches that it is known that an enlarged distal head and a “T” cut having a length L, width W and height H are elements that are functional equivalents for providing a detachable coupling mechanism ([0040]-[0041]; [0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have substituted a “T” cut having a length L, width W and height H taught by Carter for the enlarged distal head of Martinez and/or Martinez in view of Gandhi because both elements were known equivalents for providing a detachable coupling mechanism within the medical implant art. The substitution would have resulted in the predictable results of providing a detachable coupling mechanism to the device of Martinez in view of Gandhi and/or Martinez, further in view of Carter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Lynch whose telephone number is (571)270-3952. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:00AM-6:00PM, with alternate Fridays off).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Elizabeth Houston, 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 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.
/ROBERT A LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights