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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-24 in the reply filed on February 5, 2026 is acknowledged. Claim s 25-37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. 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. Claim s 1, 2, 4, 9, 11-17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Dinh (US 20210113224) . Regarding claim 1 , Dinh discloses recanalization system (100) comprising: a handle (120) located at a proximal end of the system; a first elongate member (106) ; a second elongate member (104) , the first and second elongate members being movable relative to each other elongate member (paragraph 0024) ; and a recanalization device (130) located at a distal end of the system, the recanalization device comprising: a first end portion ( 246 ) coupled to the first elongate member; a second end portion ( 242 ) coupled to the second elongate membe r (figure 1C, paragraph 0026)3 ; and at least one strut (240) extending between the first and second end portions (figure 2A) ; wherein the recanalization device is configured to be (i) selectively radially expanded and compressed and (ii) axially moved relative to the first and second elongate members (paragraph 0027-0029) . Regarding claim 2 , Dinh discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, wherein the axial movement of the recanalization device is at least one of (i) axial translation back and forth or scrubbing and (ii) rotating (paragraph 0029-0030) . Regarding claim 4 , Dinh discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, wherein the recanalization device further comprises a third elongate member (102) , wherein the first and second elongate members are included within a lumen in the third elongate member (figure 1B, paragraph 0024) , and wherein the first and second elongate members are moveable relative to the third elongate member (paragraph 0024, 0029) . Regarding claim 9 , Dinh discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, wherein the handle further comprises a trigger mechanism (122) coupled to the first elongate member, wherein, when actuated, the trigger mechanism is configured to advance the recanalization device from a first position to a second position and thereby radially contract the recanalization device from an expanded configuration (paragraph 0027) . Regarding claim 11 , Dinh discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, wherein the recanalization device is a stent (figure 2A, 130) . Regarding claim 12 , Dinh discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, wherein the recanalization device further comprises a third portion (244) extending between the first end portion and the second end portion (figure 2A) . Regarding claim 13 , Dinh discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 12, wherein the at least one strut of the recanalization device includes a plurality of pairs of support struts, wherein a first subset of the plurality extend from the first end portion toward the third portion, and wherein a second subset of the plurality extend from the second end portion toward the third portion (see image below) . Regarding claim 14 , Dinh discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 13, wherein the plurality of pairs of support struts include six pairs of support struts, and wherein the first subset includes three pairs of support struts, and wherein the second subset includes three pairs of support struts (figure 2a, there are at least 3 pairs of support struts in the first subset and at least three pairs in the second subset, see image above) . Regarding claim 15 , Dinh discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 14, wherein the at least one strut of the recanalization device further includes a plurality of diamond cell struts (middle portion 244 defines diamonds, figure 2A) extending between the support struts at the third portion of the recanalization device. Regarding claim 16 , Dinh discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 15, wherein the plurality of diamond cell struts includes six diamond cell struts (see image below) . Regarding claim 17 , Dinh discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 16, wherein each pair of support struts is connected to a single junction that connects to an apex of each diamond cell strut (figure 2A, apex of each diamond cell) . Regarding claim 22 , Dinh discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, wherein the first and second elongate members are included within and moveable (paragraph 0024) relative to an aspiration device (102, paragraph 0022-0023) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim s 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinh (US 20210113224) , as applied to claim s 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Garrison et al (US 20150173782) . Regarding claim s 3 and 5 , Dinh discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim s 1 and 4 , wherein the first and second elongate members are catheters (paragraph 0024, figures 1A-1C) and the third elongate member is a delivery catheter (102, paragraph 0022) , but does not specifically disclose the catheters are hypotubes, and wherein the hypotubes are formed of nitinol and that the third elongate member includes a braid or coil reflow construction . However, Garrison et al (hereafter Garrison) teaches it was known in the art at the time of the invention for elongate members and catheters for recanalization devices to comprise either nitinol hypotubes or a coil-reinforced catheter to vary the stiffness to have superior pushability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the first, second, and third elongate members hypotubes formed of nitinol or include a braid or recoil reflow construction, as taught as a known catheter construction at the time of the invention by Garrison, in order to vary the stiffness of the catheters to have superior pushability to reach a treatment site. Clai m s 6 -8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinh (US 20210113224), as applied to claim s 1 above, and further in view of Kassab et al (US 20100228221 ) . Regarding claim 6, Dinh discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, wherein the handle includes an actuator (122) configured to move the second elongate member relative to the first elongate member (paragraph 0027) , wherein the handle is configured to move relative toa hub portion (paragraph 0029, handle 120 moves relative to hub 110), but does not disclose an indication scale, and a leadscrew rotatably coupled to the actuator, and wherein the actuator and the leadscrew are configured to move the second elongate member relative to the first elongate member. Kassab teaches a catheter system (see 5000, Fig 25; system 5000 comprising catheters, para [0174]) comprising a first elongate member (see inner catheter 5020, Fig 25, para [0174]) and a second elongate member (see outer catheter 5010, Fig 25, para [0174]) movable relative to each other (5020 is slidable through 5010, para [0176]), further comprising a handle (see a left/proximal handle of 5000, Fig 25) including an actuator (see dial 5042, Fig 25; rotatable dial 5042 to convert rotational movement into linear movement, para [0178]), an indication scale (see mm scale, Fig 25), and a leadscrew rotatably coupled to the actuator (see shaft 5043 rotatable coupled to 5042, Fig 25; shaft 5043 may comprise a leadscrew capable of converting the rotational movement of 5042 into incremental linear movement, para [0178]), and wherein the actuator and the leadscrew are configured to move the second elongate member relative to the first elongate member (para [0179]) in order to provide a mechanism to facilitate independent movement of the second elongate member relative to the first elongate member in a controllable manner based on rotation of the actuator (para [0180]-[0182]). Therefore , it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the handle of Dinh 224 such that it includes an actuator, an indication scale, and a leadscrew rotatably coupled to the actuator, and wherein the actuator and the leadscrew are configured to move the second elongate member relative to the first elongate member , as taught by Kassab , in order to provide a mechanism to facilitate independent movement of the second elongate member relative to the first elongate member in a controllable manner based on rotation of the actuator. Regarding claim 7 , Dinh in view of Kassab teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 6, wherein a proximal end of the second elongate member is coupled to the leadscrew (the distal end of 5043 is coupled with the proximal end of 5010, paragraph 0179) , and wherein the leadscrew is activated by the actuator (paragraph 0179). Regarding claim 8 , Dinh in view of Kassab teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 7, wherein Kassab teaches the leadscrew defines an indicator that is configured to move relative to the indication scale (5043 moves relative to the mm scale as the dial 5042 is rotated , figure 25) to visually display an extent of radial expansion of the at least one strut of the recanalization device (visual amount of linear movement may be displayed, which corresponds to movement of the second elongate member relative to the first elongate member causing expansion/contraction of the at least one strut, Fig 25; calibration; paragraph 0182) . Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinh (US 20210113224), as applied to claim s 1 above, and further in view of Marchand et al (US 20180193043 ) . Regarding claim 10, Dinh discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 9, wherein the recanalization device is configured to self-expand (paragraph 0029), but does not teach when released, a biasing member coupled to the trigger mechanism is configured to return the first elongate member to the first position and thereby expand the recanalization device to the expanded configuration. However, Marchand et al (hereafter Marchand) teaches a recanalization system (system for removal of thrombus from a blood vessel, Abstract) comprising an expandable recanalization device (see 202, Fig 2-3, thrombus extraction device 202 including expandable elements 206 and 208, para [0102]), further comprising a trigger mechanism (expansion mechanism comprising a shuttle, para [0119]) coupled to a biasing member (shuttle moved according to a spring connected to the shuttle, para [0119]) configured to expand the recanalization device to the expanded configuration (moving 206 to full expansion, para [0119]). Therefore , it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the trigger mechanism of Dinh such that it is coupled to a biasing member configured to cause expansion of the recanalization device , as taught by Marchand, without requiring a force from the user , wherein as a result, when the trigger mechanism is released, the biasing member is configured to return the first elongate member to the first position and thereby expand the recanalization device to the expanded configuration. Claim s 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinh (US 20210113224), as applied to claim s 1 above, and further in view of Vo et al (US 20160157985 ) . Regarding claim s 18 and 19 , Dinh discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 15, wherein each of the diamond cell struts includes two edges (struts can include a knife edge, wherein each diamond cell includes at least two struts , paragraph 0034 ) , but does not specifically disclose a plurality of teeth along a length of the diamond cell struts . However, Vo et al (hereafter Vo) teaches a device for removing an obstruction from a bodily duct of a patient comprising diamond cell struts (figure 3), wherein it was known in the art at the time of the invention to include a plurality of a teeth along a length of the diamond cell struts (figure 4D, paragraph 0026), wherein the teeth are sized and shaped as a triangle, in order to prevent the obstruction to slip off the diamond cell struts during the process of removing the obstruction from the patient. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a plurality of triangular teeth along a length of the diamond cell struts of the device of Dinh, as taught as known in the art at the time of the invention by Vo, in order to prevent the obstruction to slip off the diamond cell struts during the process of removing the obstruction from the patient. Regarding claim 20 , Dinh in view of Vo teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 18, wherein Dinh teaches the edges of each diamond cell strut at least partially include an edge modification, wherein the edge modification includes a reduced thickness of the edge terminating in a sharp edge (knife edge, paragraph 0034) . Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinh (US 20210113224), as applied to claim s 1 above, and further in view of Aboytes (US 20150196744 ) . Regarding claim 21, Dinh discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, wherein the device is configured to capture thrombus (paragraph 0031), but does not specifically teach a collection bag is included within the recanalization device and extends from the first end portion to the second end portion. However, Aboytes teaches a recanalization device (Abstract) comprising an expandable member (the recanalization device comprises an expandable member, para [0062]) and a collection bag (the recanalization device can also have a capture bag, para [0062]) configured to catch pieces of material such as a blood clot (para [0062]) and which may be disposed proximally or distally relative to the expandable member (para [0062]). Therefore , it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the recanalization device of Dinh to further include a collection/capture bag included within the recanalization device , such that the collection bag extends from the first end portion to the second end portion in order to position it for catching material proximally relative to the distal end of the recanalization device and distally relative to the proximal end of the recanalization device , as taught by Medina , in order to better catch pieces of material such as thrombus or blood clots. Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinh (US 20210113224), as applied to claim s 1 above, and further in view of di Palma et al (US 20120059309 ) . Regarding claim 23, Dinh discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, wherein the recanalization device further comprises two opposing tabs (131b, figure 2A) that extend outwardly from the first end portion (246) or the second end portion of the recanalization device (figure 2A) , wherein the two opposing tabs are configured to engage with at least one of the first elongate member or the second elongate member (figure 1C) . Dinh also discloses a band (See image below) configured to engage with the two opposing tabs of the recanalization device, wherein the band is configured to restrict movement of the two opposing tabs of the recanalization device . Dinh discloses that the first end portion of the device tapers inward, but does not specifically disclose that the two opposing tabs are configured to be biased inward towards each other . However, di Palma et al (hereafter di Palma) teaches a device comprising a first end portion and a second end portion coupled to first and second elongate members with at least one strut extending between the first and second end portions (figure 2A), wherein the members of the first end portion (30A-D) extend distally in a radially inward direction to meet a band (43) to hold the first end portion in place to restrict movement of the first end portion. Therefore, it would have been within the level of one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the two opposing tabs of Dinh to taper and extend distally in a radially inward direction, such that they are biased towards each other since they are made of a shape memory material, as a known configuration for a distal end portion for an expandable member comprising struts tapering at a distal end thereof and coupled to an elongate shaft member. Regarding claim 24. The recanalization system of claim 23 further comprising a band configured to engage with the two opposing tabs of the recanalization device, wherein the band is configured to restrict movement of the two opposing tabs of the recanalization device. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANH TIEU DANG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3221 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday (9am-4pm EST) . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Darwin Erezo can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /ANH T DANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771