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
This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed 02/03/2026. Claims 8-10, 13 and 18 have been amended. Claims 11, 14, and 16-17 have been cancelled and claims 21-22 are newly added. Claims 1-10, 12-13, 15, and 18-22 are currently pending application with claims 1-7, 12, and 15 being withdrawn from further consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6, filed 02/03/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 16-18 under 35 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 16 has been cancelled, rendering the rejections moot. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6-9, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Kotsanis (US 4,447,227) and Sagae et al. (US 4,832,688).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-10, 18-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kotsanis (US 4,447,227).
Regarding claim 8, Kotsanis discloses a treatment system (see Fig. 34-35) comprising: a tube (1347) including a suction lumen (the interior of the tube defines a suction lumen, see Fig. 35), a first occlusion member and a second occlusion member configured to occlude a portion of a tubular organ (medical device 900 is mounted on the tube and includes first and second occlusion members, 901, which are configured for occluding a tubular organ, see col. 10, lines 36-44 and medical device 900 in annotated Fig. 25 below), wherein the first occlusion member and the second occlusion member are attached to the tube (medical device 900 is mounted on the tube 1347 and therefore the envelopes 901 would be attached to the tube); and a plurality of linear members (longitudinal conduits 921, see Fig. 25), wherein each linear member of the plurality of linear members has a first end connected to the first occlusion member and a second end connected to the second occlusion member (each end of each conduit 921 is indirectly connected to all of the envelopes 901).
PNG
media_image1.png
266
445
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Kotsanis dislcoses treatment system according to claim 8, wherein the first occlusion member and the second occlusion member are expandable (envelopes 901 are inflatable, see col. 1, lines 39-43), and at least one linear member of the plurality of linear members has its first and second ends moved radially outward as the first occlusion member and the second occlusion member expand (conduits 921 would be moved radially outward as the envelopes 901 expand since they are attached to the outer walls of the envelope, see Fig. 25).
Regarding claim 10, Kotsanis discloses the treatment system according to claim 8, wherein when positions of the first end and the second end of the plurality of linear members are moved radially outward as the first occlusion member and the second occlusion member are expanded, a maximum length of the plurality of linear members is equal to or less than a maximum length in a radial direction when the first occlusion member and the second occlusion member are fully expanded (the maximum length of the conduits 921 in the radial direction is less than the length of the envelopes 901 in the radial direction when they are fully expanded, see Fig. 25).
Regarding claim 18, Kotsanis discloses the treatment system of claim 8, wherein: the first occlusion member is provided distally relative to the second occlusion member; the plurality of linear members have first length in a longitudinal direction of the tube; a portion of the tube has a second length between a proximal end of the first occlusion member and a distal end of the second occlusion member; and the first length is longer than the second length (see annotated Fig. 25 above showing the plurality of conduits 921 collectively have a first length that is longer than a second length of the tube between the proximal end of the first occlusion member and the distal end of the second occlusion member).
Regarding claim 19, Kotsanis discloses the treatment system according to claim 8, wherein the first occlusion member and the second occlusion member are balloons (envelopes 901 are ballons, see col. 1, lines 39-43).
Regarding claim 20, discloses the treatment system according to claim 8, further comprising a suction pump configured to suction fluid from the suction lumen (tube 1347 includes suction ports 1353 and 1355 connected to a vacuum source where a vacuum is understood to function as a suction pump, see col. 10, lines 45-58).
Regarding claim 22, Kotsanis discloses the treatment system according to claim 8, wherein the first occlusion member and the second occlusion member are expandable (envelopes 901 are inflatable, see col. 1, lines 39-43), and at least one linear member of the plurality of linear members increases a distance between a longitudinal axis of the at least one linear member and a longitudinal axis of the tube as the first occlusion member and the second occlusion member expand (the distance between the longitudinal axis of each conduits 921 and the longitudinal axis of the tube running through the center of medical device 900 would increase since conduits 921 are moved radially outward and away from the tube as the envelopes 901, see Fig. 25).
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by an alternative interpretation of Kotsanis (US 4,447,227).
Regarding claim 8, Kotsanis discloses a treatment system (see Fig. 34-35) comprising: a tube (1347) including a suction lumen (the interior of the tube defines a suction lumen, see Fig. 35), a first occlusion member and a second occlusion member (two medical devices 900 are mounted onto the tube 1347 and each medical device includes envelopes 901, one of the envelopes from the first medical device 900 can be considered a first occlusion member and a second envelope from the second medical device 900 can be considered a second occlusion member, see Fig. 25 and col. 10, lines 36-44) configured to occlude a portion of a tubular organ, wherein the first occlusion member and the second occlusion member are attached to the tube (medical devices 900, including envelopes 901, are mounted on the tube 1347 and therefore the envelopes 901 are attached to the tube); and a plurality of linear members (longitudinal conduits 921, see Fig. 25), wherein each linear member of the plurality of linear members has a first end connected to the first occlusion member and a second end connected to the second occlusion member (each end of each conduit 921 is indirectly connected to all of the envelopes 901 of each medical device 900).
Regarding claim 13, discloses the treatment system according to claim 8, wherein the tube includes a suction opening disposed between the first occlusion member and the second occlusion member (tube 1347 has suction openings 1353 and 1355 disposed between the two medical devices 900, see Fig. 34 and col. 10, lines 45-58).
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotsanis in view of Sagae et al. (US 4,832,688).
Regarding claim 21, Kotsanis discloses the treatment system according to claim 8, wherein the plurality of linear members are arranged along a longitudinal direction of the tube (conduits 921 are arranged along the longitudinal axis of the tube running through the center of medical device 900, see Fig. 25).
Kotsanis fails to expressly teach the linear members are elastic members. However, it is noted that the linear members of Kotsanis are conduits and conduits made of elastic material are known in the art.
Sagae, in the same field of art, teaches a conduit made of elastic material (see col. 3, lines 60-68).
Based on the teachings of Sagae, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the linear members of Kotsanis, to be made of elastic material since elastic material was a known suitable material for a medical conduit and the selection of a material based on its suitability for its intended use involves only routine skill to yield predictable results. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). See MPEP 2144.07.
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 SERENITY MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1155. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-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, 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.
/SERENITY A MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/ELIZABETH HOUSTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights