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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 04/20/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 4, and 9-20 remain pending in the application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claims 19 and 20, the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious a second tube as claimed, in combination with the limitations of the first tube, and further in claim 20, the limitations of the third tube. In particular, the prior art does not teach or render obvious the use of separate tube structures in between the plurality of retrieval devices capable of engaging the proximal and distal collars thereof, ultimately contributing to the expansion via elongate wire.
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.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “the first tube having a distal facing surface that faces the proximal facing surface of the proximal collar” in lines 17-18 and then further recites “the proximal collar being soldered to a distal end of the first tube” in line 20. There is no written description support for both of these conditions existing simultaneously in the same invention. [0105] discloses “According to some implementations, the proximal collar 13 is attached to a distal end 30b of the tube 30 by… soldering” and “In an alternative implementation, the proximal collar 13 is not fixed to the tube 30 and has a proximal facing surface 13c (FIG. 5A) that faces a distal facing surface 30c (FIG. 5B) of the tube 30”. The claimed features are disclosed as being used in the alternative, and there is no disclosure of a device where both of these limitations are met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the first tube having a distal facing surface that faces the proximal facing surface of the proximal collar” in lines 17-18 and then further recites “the proximal collar being soldered to a distal end of the first tube” in line 20. It is unclear what arrangement of the proximal collar and distal end of the first tube would meet these limitations simultaneously. Soldering the proximal collar to the distal end of the first tube would remove the ability of the first tube having a distal facing surface that faces the proximal facing surface of the proximal collar; therefore, the limitations appear to be contradictory. As described above in the rejection under 35 USC 112(a), the limitations appear to recite mutually exclusive characteristics of different embodiments and therefore one of ordinary skill int eh art cannot determine the scope of the claim because it is unclear how both limitations (the first tube and proximal collars having end surfaces which face each other while also having those ends soldered together) cane be met by the same device because soldering two pieces together implied the pieces are permanently attached while surfaces facing one another implies there is a structural break between the two in order to form distinct surfaces.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BROOKE N LABRANCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9775. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 5712727134. 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.
/BROOKE LABRANCHE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights