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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20080097213 A1 to Carlson et al. (hereinafter, Carlson).
Regarding Claim 16, Carlson discloses a method for forming a joint for treating occluded vessels, comprising inter alia:
providing a guidewire (catheter 80) (FIG. 8) having a joint at a distal end thereof (paragraph [0032] “…tip of the catheter…” where “joint” is interpreted as the distal section of catheter 80 with bands 81, 82, and 83 and the distal end is being interpreted as the very distal end of catheter 80); and
using a manufacturing process to form a plurality of dimples on the joint (paragraph [0032] “…81, 82, 83 of echogenic marks placed near the distal end of the catheter…”) (paragraph [0034] “…materials may be machined using lasers…to from echogenic surfaces upon.”).
Regarding Claim 17, Carlson discloses the method of claim 16, wherein a laser is used to form the plurality of dimples on the joint (paragraph [0032] “…81, 82, 83 of echogenic marks placed near the distal end of the catheter…”) (paragraph [0034] “…materials may be machined using lasers…to from echogenic surfaces upon.”).
Regarding Claim 18, Carlson discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the laser forms a uniformly spaced pattern of the plurality of dimples (paragraph [0032] “…bands may be spaced as desired, such as at 1 cm intervals.”).
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(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Effect of laser-dimpled titanium surfaces on attachment of epithelial-like cells and fibroblasts to Lee et al. (hereinafter, Lee) and further in view of US 20140378841 A1 to Coats et al. (hereinafter, Coats).
Carlson discloses method of claims 18 and 19 except for expressly disclosing
wherein the plurality of dimples are spaced apart a distance of 0.001-inch.
However, Lee teaches the modification of a surface of a medical device to alter its physical properties by forming dimples on the surface of the metal medical device (see Materials and Methods, “The laser beam was focused…form a dimple.”), where the surface is modified so that the dimples are spaced apart of 0.001 inches (see Materials and Methods, “…at 25-µm intervals…” where 25-µm equals 0.00098425-inches or approximately 0.001-inches).
One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify at least some of the plurality of dimples of Carlson to have the spaced apart distance of 0.001 inch of Lee as teaches at paragraph [0032] that bands with respective dimples may be spaced as desired and further teaches at paragraph [0027] that the different sizes and shapes of the dimples allow users to more readily identify the medical device. It would have been obvious to have substituted the known-laser formed dimple array geometry of Carlson with the laser-machined dimples spaced at 0.001-inch of Lee as this would have been a predictable variation using a known surface texture for a medical device with another known surface texture for a medical device to obtain desired spacing, size and shapes for the intended purpose of identification of medical device.
Furthermore, one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify at least some of the plurality of dimples of Carlson to have the spaced apart distance of 0.001 inch of Lee, because Coats teaches the spacing of dimples in the micrometers (paragraphs [0010] and [0027]) for in in vivo medical application (Abstract “…cannula, catheter, catheter tip or similar article…”; paragraph [0002]) near the distal end of a medical device (paragraph [0031] “…near the cutting tip of the needle…”) for the intended purpose of increasing density of scattering centers (dimples) within the focal area so as to enhance scatting effect (visibility), which is the explicit goal of Coats (paragraphs [0011], [0029]).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson.
Regarding Claim 21, Carlson discloses the method of claim 16 including wherein a laser is used to form the plurality of dimples (paragraph [0032] “…bands may be spaced as desired…”.
Carlson discloses the claimed invention as set forth and cited above except for where the plurality of dimples are in a randomly spaced pattern. However, in an alternative embodiment taught by Carlson in FIG.5 and at paragraph [0027] random dimpled patterns are taught as alternative surface textures on an elongated medical device.
One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the plurality of dimples of Carlson in FIG. 8 to be in the randomly spaced pattern of Carlson in FIG. 5 because Carlson teaches at paragraph [0032] that the bands and respective dimples may be spaced as desired and further teaches at paragraphs [0027] that adding these random dimples in different sizes and shapes would have allow users to more readily identify the medical device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN PATRICK DOUGHERTY whose telephone number is (571)270-5044. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm (Pacific Time).
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571)272-5596. 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.
/SEAN P DOUGHERTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791