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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 states “wherein the proximal rigid section and the distal rigid section as a lower degree of elasticity”, however it should read “wherein the proximal rigid section and the distal rigid section comprise a lower degree of elasticity” to match with corresponding claim 15.
Claim 18 ends with two periods. Claim 19 is objected to due to its dependence on claim 18.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. US 11937824 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of US 11937824 B2 recite the scope of the claims in the instant application.
Regarding claim 1, claim 4 of US 11937824 B2 claims a detachment system for delivering an implantable medical device to a target location of a body vessel (Col 11, line 5-7), the system comprising:
a tubular body comprising a lumen extending therethrough and a compressed distal tube (Col 11, line 8-10);
a loop wire comprising a first end affixed to the tubular body and comprising a loop opening (88) positioned proximate a distal end of the compressed distal tube (Col 11, line 11-12); and
a pull wire extending through the lumen and through the loop opening (Col 11, line 14-15), the pull wire being defined by a proximal rigid section, a distal rigid section, and a slack section positioned between the proximal rigid section and the distal rigid section (Col 11, line 25-28),
wherein the slack section enables the proximal rigid section to translate proximally and distally independently from the distal rigid section when the detachment system is traversing a microcatheter (Col 11, line 15-20), and
wherein the slack section is a plurality of bends in the pull wire positioned proximal to a location wherein the loop wire contacts the pull wire (Col 11, line 43-46).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 of US 11937824 B2 claims a detachment system for delivering an implantable medical device to a target location of a body vessel (Col 12, line 1-3), the system comprising:
a pull wire extending through a tubular body of the detachment system, the pull wire being defined by a proximal rigid section, a distal rigid section, and a slack section positioned between the proximal rigid section and the distal rigid section (Col 12, line 17-21); and
a loop wire looped over the pull wire at a distal end of the loop wire (Col 12, line 6-7),
wherein the slack section is positioned proximal to a loop opening in the loop wire (Col 12, line 14-17), the slack section being effective to inhibit premature detachment of the implantable medical device by inhibiting movement of a distal end of the pull wire when the detachment system is traversing a microcatheter (Col 12, line 7-13), and
wherein the slack section is a plurality of bends in the pull wire positioned proximal to a location wherein the loop wire contacts the pull wire (Col 12, line 31-34).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 10 would be allowed with filing of a Terminal Disclaimer to overcome the rejections under non-statutory double patenting above. Claims 2-9 and 11-17 are objected to for depending on rejected base claims. Claims 6 and 18-9 are objected to for minor informalities but would be allowed if appropriate corrections are made.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art of record, Mayer (WO 2020148768 A1) (noted on IDS) discloses a detachment system for delivering an implantable medical device to a target location of a body vessel, the system comprising:
a tubular body (50) comprising a lumen extending therethrough and a compressed distal tube (58) (Figure 2A-C);
a loop wire (80) comprising a first end affixed to the tubular body and comprising a loop opening (88) positioned proximate a distal end of the compressed distal tube (Figure 4C); and
a pull wire (60) extending through the lumen and through the loop opening (Figure 4C), the pull wire being defined by a proximal rigid section, a distal rigid section, and a slack section (90) positioned between the proximal rigid section and the distal rigid section (Figure 1, 2C),
wherein the slack section enables the proximal rigid section to translate proximally and distally independently from the distal rigid section when the detachment system is traversing a microcatheter, and
wherein the slack section is a plurality of bends (coils of helical col 90) in the pull wire positioned proximal to a location wherein the loop wire contacts the pull wire.
Mayer fails to explicitly disclose a loop wire comprising a first end affixed to the tubular body and wherein the slack section is positioned proximal to a location wherein the loop wire contacts the pull wire. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify Mayer to include such limitations as it would likely destroy the operation of the device and Mayer teaches away from such a configuration “Pull-wire loop 88 provides some slack to absorb some of this proximal pulling of pull wire 80. Typically, in order to provide this slack, a distal-most point of pull-wire loop 88 is initially disposed distal to a proximal-most point of safety-wire hook 84, such as a distance equal to at least 1 mm, e.g., at least 2, 3, or 4 mm distal to the proximal-most point of safety-wire hook 84. As a result, proximal pulling of pull wire 80 by up to the distance is not transmitted to distal portion 62 of safety wire 60” (Page 2, lines 29- Page 3 line 1). Thus, rearrangement of the loop opening and slack section would not be an obvious modification to Mayer.
Further, Johnson et al (US 20090312748 A1) (noted on IDS) discloses a similar device, with control member 126 disclosed as a pull wire, however does not disclose a pull wire with a slack section. A modification to include a slack section in the pull wire would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as Johnson requires the control member 126 to be sufficiently stiff to be advanced and/or retracted within the lumen 128 of the carrier member 114 (Paragraph 0050). As such, providing the pull wire with a slack section would reduce the stiffness of the pull wire, resulting in diminished operation of the device.
Thus, claim 1 and its dependents are allowed as being patentable over the prior art. claim 10 and its dependents along with claims 18-19 are directed to a device and method with similar features including the allowable claim limitations, thus are allowed for the same reasons as claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEHRA JAFFRI whose telephone number is (571)272-7738. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
/Z.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/KATHERINE H SCHWIKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771