DETAILED ACTION
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 8-20 remain withdrawn. A complete action on the merits of pending claims 1-7 appears below.
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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s amendments filed on 05/13/2026 which are entered. With regards to the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation documented in the Final Office Action sent on 04/03/2026, it is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “cutting mechanism” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“cutting mechanism” – the corresponding structure is found in paragraph [0044], which states, “… a blade 740 is affixed to the upper jaw 730a, the blade 740 having a sharp cutting edge 742. Some alternatives are possible as shown in Figs. 7B-F. For example, a blade 740 may be affixed only to the upper jaw (Fig. 7B) or only the lower jaw (Fig. 7C). Two opposing blades 740a-b may be affixed to both jaws and oppose one another (Fig. 7D). The blade(s) may oppose a flat inner surface of the jaw, or a receiving slot 745 cut into the opposing lower jaw (Fig. 7E) or upper jaw (Fig. 7F). The blade 740 may also be recessed into the jaw and actuated using an independent control wire to allow leaflet grasping and laceration to be performed independently. The jaw assembly 700 and/or blade 740 actuation may be controlled at the handle, together or independently, and may be performed with or without proximal tension on the device to cut a tissue 750.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feld (WO 2022/013857 A1 (See attached document)), in view of Brock (US 2002/0087049 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
882
1083
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Feld teaches, a medical instrument (Figure 1A and 5, valve-splitting device (20); Page 7, line 8-11), comprising:
a flexible sheath (Figure 1A and 5, cover sheath (22)) configured and sized to pass through a femoral artery (Page 7, line 13-23);
an inner catheter (Figure 1E-1F, cutting sleeve (44)) at least partially disposed within the flexible sheath (Page 8, line 25-27), the inner catheter (cutting sleeve (44)) being rotatable and translatable relative to the flexible sheath (Page 8, line 23-27, disclosure, describing the movement of cutting sleeve (44) relative to cover sheath (22) is a clear indication that cutting sleeve (44) is capable of translation and rotation relative to cover sheath (22)), and the inner catheter having a deflectable section (See annotated Figure 5 above, (Deflectable section); As seen in Figures 1A-1B and 5, the cover sheath (22) is clearly flexible and bending, given that cutting sleeve (44) is situated within sheath (22) it is also reasonable to assume that sleeve (44) is also flexible and capable of bending, thus resulting in a deflectable section);
a pair of opposing jaws (Figures 1B and 1D, cutters (30 & 32); Page 7, line 24-28) coupled to the inner catheter (Figures 1E-1F; Page 8, line 23-25), the pair of opposing jaws having an open condition and a closed condition (Figures 1B and 1D; Page 8, line 13-25); and
a cutting mechanism (Figures 1B and 1D, protrusions (34); Page 7, line 25-28) disposed adjacent to at least one of the pair of opposing jaws (Page 7, line 30-Page 8, line 5).
Feld fails to teach, at least one pull wire extending through the inner catheter and configured to actuate at least one jaw of the pair of opposing jaws; and a hinge point configured for annular plane deflection to allow a bend between the inner catheter and the pair of opposing jaws, the hinge point being distal to the deflectable section and positioned adjacent the pair of opposing jaws.
Brock discloses, a remote-controlled flexible instrument system (catheter/shaft) for minimally invasive procedures, including cardiac valve interventions (Paragraphs [0095]-[0096]). Brock teaches, coaxial outer guide shaft (Figures 6-12, (O1/32)) and inner working shaft (Figures 7-13, (O2/34)), where the inner shaft supports a tool (Figures 12-13, grasper with opposing jaws (18)) at its distal end (Figures 12-13; Paragraph [0183]); the inner shaft is controllable for rotation about the co-axis and translation (Paragraphs [0172]-[0173] and [0184]); the system includes a controlled flexible/operative segment (Figures 6-8 and 12, (O/42)) on the shaft for bending (deflectable section); at least one pull wire cable (Figures 7-11 & 42A, cable (28) or cables (538)) extending through the inner catheter/shaft and configured to actuate at least one jaw of the pair of opposing jaws (Paragraphs [0183] & [0191]); and at the distal end of the inner working shaft there is a hinge point that provides a degree of freedom (ψ) for bending motion (Figure 13; Paragraph [0185]; Where this hinge point will enable the bend/orientation between the shaft and tool/jaws).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Feld’s valve-splitting device by incorporating Brock’s pull-wire actuation for the opposing jaws and Brock’s distal hinge point (as showing in Figure 42A and described in Paragraph [0185]) for annular plane deflection, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to steerable catheters for cardiac valve procedures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Feld’s valve-splitting device by incorporating Brock’s pull-wire actuation for the opposing jaws and Brock’s distal hinge point (as showing in Figure 42A and described in Paragraph [0185]) for annular plane deflection, as such a modification would have been predictable, namely, Brock’s pull wires provide a conventional, precise, and remotely controllable alternative (or addition) to Feld’s spring-and-sleeve jaw actuation, while the distal hinge enables the precise angular positioning needed for safe and effective leaflet grasping in the annular plane (Paragraphs [0012] & [0014] of Brock). The modification yields only predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Regarding claim 2, Feld further teaches, wherein the deflectable section (Deflectable section) of the inner catheter (cutting sleeve (44)) is disposed proximal to the pair of opposing jaws (As seen in Figure 5, the (Deflectable section) is indeed proximal of cutters (30 & 32)).
Regarding claim 3, Feld in view of Brock discloses the claimed invention except for, “wherein the hinge point is configured to allow a bend of 90 degrees between the inner catheter and the pair of opposing jaws.” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the bend to approximately 90 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. As shown in Figure 13 and described in paragraph [0185] of Brock, a hinge point at degree of freedom (ψ) on inner working shaft (O2/34) is fully capable of performing a 90 degree bend. In re Aller.
Regarding claim 4, Feld further teaches, wherein the cutting mechanism (protrusions (34)) comprises at least one sharp blade (protrusions (34); Page 7, line 27-28) coupled to at least one of the pair of opposing jaws (Figures 1B and 1D, second opposing cutter (32); Page 7, line 25-28).
Regarding claim 5, Feld further teaches, wherein the cutting mechanism (protrusions (34)) comprises a single blade (protrusion (34); Page 7, line 27-28) affixed to the at least one of the pair of opposing jaws (Figures 1B and 1D, second opposing cutter (32); Page 7, line 25-28).
Regarding claim 6, Feld further teaches, wherein the at least one sharp blade (protrusions (34)) includes two opposing blades affixed to respective ones of the pair of opposing jaws (Figures 1B and 1D, first over-the-wire cutter (30) and second opposing cutter (32); Page 7, line 30-Page 8, line 2).
Regarding claim 7, Feld further teaches, wherein the at least one sharp blade (protrusions (34)) is independently actuatable via a dedicated control wire that passes through the inner catheter (Page 8, line 13-18, disclose, “As shown in Fig. 1D, after confirmation of proper positioning, splitter 26 is opened by separating first over-the-wire cutter 30 and second opposing cutter 32 from each other. For some applications, splitter 26 comprises a spring 42 that is configured to separate the cutters 30 an d32 from each other (as shown, for example, in Fig. 1D); alternatively, splitter 26 is opened using other techniques, such as using one or more control wires (configuration not shown).” For the control wire mechanism to be operative, it must follow the only functional and enabled pathway illustrated by the overall device architecture described in Feld. Since the control wire must connect the proximal control (Figure 5, operating handle (212); Page 10, line 17-26) to the distal cutters (30 & 32) which include protrusions (34), and the sleeve (44) is situated between these two points, the wire necessarily passes through the lumen of the inner catheter (cutting sleeve (44)). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this inherent structural necessity. Further, the dedicated control wire, which is meant as a distinct alternative to the spring mechanism, enables the independent actuation of the sharp blade (protrusion (34)) on the cutter (32) by providing a separate, user-controlled input of splitter (26) which includes cutters (30 & 32). This functionality is consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Feld’s sleeve-based closure is “difficult” and increases device bulk, and that Brock does not cure this. These arguments are unpersuasive for several reasons:
Firstly, obviousness does not require that the secondary reference solve every alleged shortcoming of the primary reference. The test is whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a skilled artisan (KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007)). Here, Brock’s cable actuation and distal wrist are predictable, well-known mechanisms in the same field that a skilled artisan would naturally apply to improve control and positioning of Feld’s jaws.
Secondly, the alleged disadvantages of Feld’s sleeve (bulk, dexterity required) are not recited in the claims and do not demonstrate non-obviousness. Moreover, combining Brock’s features would be expected to reduce, rather than increase, control complexity by enabling remote, cable-driven jaw actuation and targeted distal deflection.
Lastly, there is no teaching away in either reference. A skilled artisan would recognize Brock’s pull wires and distal hinge as compatible enhancements for Feld’s BASILICA device.
The combination yields only predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate Brock’s pull wire and distal hinge into Feld’s instrument to arrive at the claimed invention.
The rejection of claim 1, and all claims dependent thereon, is maintained.
See updated rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSAMA NEMER whose telephone number is (571)272-6365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at (571)272-4696. 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.
/O.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3771 /TAN-UYEN T HO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771
