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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendments requiring that the piezo-electric material is provided “in the form of a deposited layer, a thin film, a surface layer, a plated layer, or a printed layer” distinguishes the claimed invention from the prior art of Fields as modified by Chandusko. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Chandusko teaches that the body is made of extruded or laser cut wires made of piezoelectric ceramics ([0036]). It is the examiner’s position that a wire made entirely of piezoelectric ceramics has a surface layer made of piezoelectric ceramics. That is to say, a surface layer is merely an arbitrary thickness of the wire that includes the surface, noting that claim 3 requires that the first and second segments are made completely of piezo-electric material. The examiner also maintains that providing the piezoelectric material in the form of a “deposited layer”, “plated layer” or “printed layer” are each considered product-by-process limitations. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, and 16-19 are drawn to the product, not its method of manufacture. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure necessitated by the steps. The examiner maintains that the first and second body segments including extruded or laser cut wires made of piezoelectric ceramics as disclosed by Fields in view of Chandusko also meet the final structure necessitated by the product-by-process limitations of a piezo-electric material provided in the form of a deposited, plated, or printed layer since the final structure necessitated by any one of these processes is merely a first segment and second segment that is made at least partially of piezo-electric material. That is to say, the process of providing a layer of piezoelectric material by plating, depositing, or printing does not necessitate that there is also a layer of a different material.
Regarding claim 6, though applicant notes that the connector of Fields extends through the interior of the first and second segments, the connector also extends outside both the first and second segments and thus meets this limitation. See the segment of the connector (555) that extends around the bend from artery 114 to artery 112 in fig. 5a of Fields. It is further noted that claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, includes that the delivery wire (which includes the connector according to claim 6) extends through the body of the first segment and the second segment.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: in line 9, “extending though” should read “extending through”.
Claim 17: “piezo-electric” should read “piezo-electric material”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields et al. (US 2018/0235742) in view of Chanduszko et al. (US 2010/0030254). Fields discloses a clot retrieval device (fig. 5A,5B) comprising a first segment (e.g., 506) and a second segment (e.g., 520), each of the first and second segments having a generally conical body with a distal tip and a proximal mouth (see fig. 5A), the body of the first segment and the second segment having a lattice structure with struts crossing each other to define diamond-shaped spaces therebetween (as illustrated in fig. 5a, noting diamond-shaped spaces), and a delivery wire (at least 555, 557 and unnumbered portion proximal of 555 that extends through filter 506) extending through the body of the first segment and the body of the second segment and fixedly connected to at least the distal tip of the first segment and the distal tip of the second segment (see figs. 5a,5b; [0066]: the tether elements 555, 557 may form a continuous tether integrated into the filter frames that runs within the filter membrane of filters 522,520,506). Fields does not expressly disclose that the body includes a piezo-electric material.
Chandusko discloses another device that allows passage of blood while capturing clots, thus preventing the clots from moving downstream of the device, the device comprising first and second segments (14a, 14b; fig. 1) each having a generally conical body. Chandusko discloses that piezoelectric material, including piezoelectric ceramic, is known in the art as a suitable material for the construction of the first and second segments ([0036]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the prior art of Fields to construct the body of the first and second segments of piezoelectric material in view of Chandusko, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Chandusko teaches that the body is made of extruded or laser cut wires made of piezoelectric ceramics ([0036]) and thus it is understood that the wires (struts) may be made entirely out of piezoelectric ceramics. A wire made entirely out of piezoelectric ceramics has a surface layer made of piezoelectric ceramics. That is to say, a surface layer is merely an arbitrary thickness of the wire that includes the surface, noting that claim 3 requires that the first and second segments are made completely of piezo-electric material. Alternatively, it is noted that providing the piezoelectric material in the form of a “deposited layer”, “plated layer” or “printed layer” are each considered product-by-process limitations. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, and 16-19 are drawn to the product, not its method of manufacture. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure necessitated by the steps. The examiner maintains that the first and second body segments including extruded or laser cut wires made of piezoelectric ceramics as disclosed by Fields in view of Chandusko meet the final structure necessitated by the product-by-process limitations of a piezo-electric material provided in the form of a deposited, plated, or printed layer since the final structure necessitated by any one of these processes is merely a first segment and second segment that is made at least partially of piezo-electric material.
Regarding claim 2, Chandusko teaches constructing the first and second segment bodies out of piezoelectric composites ([0036]), which include piezoelectric material such as piezoelectric ceramic in combination with a passive filling material as is known in the art, and thus makes obvious composing the body of the first and second segments partially of piezoelectric material (noting the filling material in the composite is passive).
Regarding claim 3, Chandusko teaches constructing the first and second segment bodies out of piezoelectric ceramics ([0036]) and thus makes obvious composing the body of the first and second segments completely out of piezoelectric material (i.e., piezoelectric ceramic).
Regarding claim 4, the piezo-electric material comprises a piezoelectric ceramic as taught by Chandusko ([0036]).
Regarding claim 6, the delivery wire (555,557, and unnumbered portion proximal of 555) is fixedly connected to the proximal mouth of the first segment and includes a connector (555) that fixedly connects the distal tip of the first segment and the proximal mouth of the second segment (see [0066], noting Fields discloses that the “tethering elements” 557, 555 may form a continuous tether that runs within all three filters 522, 520, 506 and is integrated into the filter frames). The connector (555) extends outside both the first and second segments in the area between the first and second segments as shown in fig. 5a of Fields (i.e., where it passes from artery 112 to artery 114).
Regarding claim 8, the delivery wire is provided along a longitudinal line that is offset by 180 degrees from a longitudinal line defined by the connector (e.g., when positioned as shown in fig. 5a; consider portion of connector 555 within filter 520 and portion outside of filter 520, within artery 112, after the 180 degree bend: see examiner-annotated fig. 5a below).
PNG
media_image1.png
468
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, the piezo-electric material provides a source of electric energy. In particular, piezoelectric materials are defined as materials that accumulate electric charge in response to applied stress. Thus, the piezoelectric material taught by Chandusko is understood to provide a source of electric energy when stress is applied thereto.
Regarding claim 10, the proximal mouth of the first segment is angled by a radial angle (e.g., angled with respect to the delivery wire, noting no particular degree of radial angle is claimed).
Regarding claim 11, a diameter of the body of each of the first segment and the second segment is greatest at the respective proximal mouth and tapers toward the respective distal tip (see figs. 5a, 5b).
Regarding claim 13, the connector (555) of the device of Fields in view of Chandusko is a first connector, the device further including a third segment (e.g., 522) having a generally conical body with a distal tip and a proximal mouth, the body of the third segment has a lattice structure with struts crossing each other to define diamond shaped spaces therebetween (fig. 5a), wherein the delivery wire (555,557,tether portion proximal of 555) also extends through the body of the third segment (figs. 5a, 5b; [0066]) and is fixedly connected to the distal tip of the third segment, the delivery wire further including a second connector (557) fixedly connecting the distal tip of the second segment and the proximal mouth of the third segment. As currently claimed, the first and second connectors are parts of the delivery wire. Thus, the second connector is provided along a longitudinal line that is the same as the longitudinal line defined by the delivery wire (e.g., at the location of the delivery wire that comprises the second connector; noting that the longitudinal line along which the delivery wire is provided is also 180 degrees offset from the longitudinal line defined by the first connector as discussed above with respect to claim 8). As discussed in more detail above, the body of the third segment includes a piezoelectric material in view of Chandusko’s teaching that piezoelectric material is suitable for construction of an expandable frame meant to capture emboli.
Regarding claim 16, Fields in view of Chandusko discloses a clot retrieval device comprising a segment (522) having a generally conical body with a distal tip and a proximal mouth, the body has a lattice structure with struts crossing each other to define diamond-shaped spaces therebetween (see fig. 5a), and the body includes a piezoelectric material as taught by Chandusko (see above), and a delivery wire (557) extending through the body of the segment and fixedly connected to at least the distal tip of the segment. As noted above, Chandusko teaches that the body is made of extruded or laser cut wires made of piezoelectric ceramics ([0036]) and thus it is understood that the wires may be made entirely out of piezoelectric ceramics. A wire made entirely out of piezoelectric ceramics has a surface layer made of piezoelectric ceramics. That is to say, a surface layer is merely an arbitrary thickness of the wire that includes the surface. Alternatively, it is noted that providing the piezoelectric material in the form of a “deposited layer”, “plated layer” or “printed layer” are each considered product-by-process limitations. Claims 16-19 are drawn to the product, not its method of manufacture. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure necessitated by the steps. The examiner maintains that the first and second body segments including extruded or laser cut wires made of piezoelectric ceramics as disclosed by Fields in view of Chandusko also meet the final structure necessitated by the product-by-process limitations of a piezo-electric material provided in the form of a deposited, plated, or printed layer since the final structure necessitated by any one of these processes is merely a first segment and second segment that is made at least partially of piezo-electric material.
Regarding claim 17, the piezoelectric material provides a source of electric energy. In particular, piezoelectric materials are defined as materials that accumulate electric charge in response to applied stress. Thus, the piezoelectric material taught by Chandusko is understood to provide a source of electric energy in response to applied stress.
Regarding claim 18, the proximal mouth is angled by a radial angle (e.g., mouth is angled relative to the delivery wire, noting no particular degree of angle is claimed).
Regarding claim 19, the piezoelectric material comprises a piezoelectric ceramic.
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 KATHLEEN SONNETT HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5, with alternate Fridays off.
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.
KSH 3/25/2026
/KATHLEEN S HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights