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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Figures 9 and 10 are in grey scale and are blurry. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 (line 11), 4 (line 2), 9 (line 4), 15 (line 2), and 19 (line 4) recite “a deployment configuration”, although the lines are understood by the Examiner to mean “the deployment configuration” as the “deployment configuration” was previously defined in claims 1 and 12, the Examiner suggests the lines be amended to read “the deployment configuration” for the purpose of maintaining consistent language throughout the claims;
Claim 4 recites “an undeployed configuration” in line 5, although the line is understood by the Examiner to mean “the undeployed configuration” as the “undeployed configuration” was previously defined in claim 1, the Examiner suggests the lines be amended to read “the undeployed configuration” for the purpose of maintaining consistent language throughout the claims;
Claims 6 and 16 recite “the proximal end” and “the catheter”, although the lines are understood by the Examiner to mean “a proximal end” and “the main catheter” as the proximal end was not previously recited and the catheter was previously recited as “the main catheter”, the Examiner suggests the lines be amended to read “a proximal end” and “the main catheter” for the purpose of maintaining consistent language throughout the claims;
Claims 8 and 18 recite “the arm” in line 2, although the lines are understood by the Examiner to mean “the arm tube” as previously recited, the Examiner suggests the lines be amended to read “the arm tube” for the purpose of maintaining consistent language throughout the claims;
Claims 9 and 19 recite “the patient’s body” in line 2, although the lines are understood by the Examiner to mean “a body of the patient” as the body was not previously defined, the Examiner suggests the lines be amended to read “a body of the patient” for the purpose of having proper antecedent basis for the claimed terms;
Claim 11 recites “the tab” in line 1, although the line is understood by the Examiner to mean “the drive tab” as previously defined, the Examiner suggests the line be amended to read “the drive tab” for the purpose of maintaining consistent language throughout the claims;
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 9, 10, 12 – 14, and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US 6,743,228 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a device (tissue severing device 100) capable of being a cardiac cutting device (Examiner’s note: it should be understood that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88. With that said, the device of Lee is structurally similar to the claimed device and is therefore capable of functioning as a cardiac cutting device), the device comprising:
a main catheter (tubular shaft 150) (col. 6 lines 48 – 65 and Fig. 1A-C) configured to be threaded into a patient's vasculature (Examiner’s note: it should be understood that the preceding limitations are intended use, and only require the structure of the prior art be capable of functioning in the manner claimed. With that said, the device is capable of being threaded through a patient’s vasculature. Therefore, the device is configured to function as claimed), the main catheter comprising a retractable external sheath (tubular shaft 150), the external sheath retracted when the main catheter is in a deployed configuration (configuration shown in Fig. 1C) (Examiner’s note: as discussed in col. 6 lines 48 – 65 and shown through the Figs. 1A-1C, the guide lumens 104 / 106 is slid out of the tubular shaft 150, therefore, the tubular shaft 150 (i.e., the sheath) is retracted relative to the guide lumens and is considered a retractable sheath as it moves proximally relative to the distally moving guide lumens);
a distal tube (distal segment 110) and an arm tube (distal segment 108) retractable within the main catheter (tubular shaft 150) (col. 6 lines 25 – 63 and Fig. 1A) and covered by the external sheath when the main catheter is in an undeployed configuration (configuration shown in Fig. 1A) (Fig. 1A), the distal tube and the arm tube projecting from the main catheter when the main catheter is in the deployed configuration (Fig. 1C), the distal tube and the arm tube projecting radially from the main catheter in a same plane when the main catheter is in the deployed configuration (Fig. 1C);
a cutting wire (cutting tool 120) extending between the distal tube and the arm tube (col. 9 lines 51 – 65, col. 10 lines 1 – 5, and Figs. 1B/C), the cutting wire projecting outwardly from the main catheter when the main catheter is in a deployed configuration (Figs. 1B/C).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Lee further discloses wherein the cutting wire is operable to cut aortic valve leaflets by moving in a reciprocating motion and by moving in a rotating motion (Examiner’s note: it should be understood that the preceding limitations are intended use, and only require the structure of the prior art be capable of functioning in the manner claimed. With that said, the entire device can be reciprocated and rotated such that the cutting tool 120 (i.e., the cutting wire) is capable of cutting aortic leaflets via a reciprocating / rotating motion).
Regarding claim 9, Lee further discloses comprising a controller (handle 190) for actuating the cutting wire from outside of the patient's body (col. 9 lines 52 – 65), the cutting wire configured to extend from the main catheter to the controller (col. 9 lines 52 – 65), the controller comprising a tension adjustment bolt (one of the controls 191 – 194) for adjusting the tension on the cutting wire when the main catheter is in a deployed configuration (Examiner’s note: as stated in col. 13 lines 15 – 33 the controller comprises controls 191 – 194 that provide control for extending the loop and adjusting the width, when adjusting the width of the loop the tension will be adjusted; therefore, the controller comprises a tension adjustment bolt).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Lee further discloses wherein the controller further comprises a drive tab (another one of the controls 191 – 194) operable to move the cutting wire (cutting tool 120) back and forth in a reciprocal motion (Examiner’s note: as stated in col. 13 lines 15 – 33 the controller comprises controls 191 – 194 that provide control for extending [and retracting] the loop, therefore, the control is operable to move the cutting wire in back and forth motion).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Lee discloses a device (tissue severing device 100) capable of being a cardiac cutting device (Examiner’s note: it should be understood that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88. With that said, the device of Lee is structurally similar to the claimed device and is therefore capable of functioning as a cardiac cutting device) the device comprising:
a main catheter (tubular shaft 150) (col. 6 lines 48 – 65 and Fig. 1A-C) adapted for femoral insertion into a patient's vasculature in an over-the- wire method, the main catheter comprising a retractable external sheath (tubular shaft 150), the external sheath retracted when the main catheter is in a deployed configuration (configuration shown in Fig. 1C) (Examiner’s note: as discussed in col. 6 lines 48 – 65 and shown through the Figs. 1A-1C, the guide lumens 104 / 106 is slid out of the tubular shaft 150, therefore, the tubular shaft 150 (i.e., the sheath) is retracted relative to the guide lumens and is considered a retractable sheath as it moves proximally relative to the distally moving guide lumens);
a distal tube (distal segment 110) and an arm tube (distal segment 108) retractable within the main catheter (tubular shaft 150) (col. 6 lines 25 – 63 and Fig. 1A) and covered by the external sheath when the main catheter is in an undeployed configuration (configuration shown in Fig. 1A) (Fig. 1A), the distal tube and the arm tube projecting from the main catheter when the main catheter is in the deployed configuration (Fig. 1C), the distal tube and the arm tube projecting radially from the main catheter in a same plane when the main catheter is in the deployed configuration (Fig. 1C);
a cutting wire (cutting tool 120) extending between the distal tube and the arm tube (col. 9 lines 51 – 65, col. 10 lines 1 – 5, and Figs. 1B/C)
Regarding claim 14, Lee further discloses wherein the cutting wire is operable to cut aortic valve leaflets by moving in a reciprocating motion and by moving in a rotating motion (Examiner’s note: it should be understood that the preceding limitations are intended use, and only require the structure of the prior art be capable of functioning in the manner claimed. With that said, the entire device can be reciprocated and rotated such that the cutting tool 120 (i.e., the cutting wire) is capable of cutting aortic leaflets via a reciprocating / rotating motion).
Regarding claim 19, Lee further discloses comprising a controller (handle 190) for actuating the cutting wire from outside of the patient's body (col. 9 lines 52 – 65), the cutting wire configured to extend from the main catheter to the controller (col. 9 lines 52 – 65), the controller comprising a tension adjustment bolt (one of the controls 191 – 194) for adjusting the tension on the cutting wire when the main catheter is in a deployed configuration (Examiner’s note: as stated in col. 13 lines 15 – 33 the controller comprises controls 191 – 194 that provide control for extending the loop and adjusting the width, when adjusting the width of the loop the tension will be adjusted; therefore, the controller comprises a tension adjustment bolt).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 8, 12 – 14, and 16 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woolfson et al (US 8,771,302 B2) and in view of Kheradvar et al (US 2017/0360557 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Woolfson discloses a cardiac cutting device (expandable resector 1025) (abstract, col. 23 line 63 – col. 24 line 13, and Fig. 23) comprising:
a main catheter (see annotated Fig. 23) configured to be threaded into a patient's vasculature (col. 22 lines 14 – 33);
a distal tube (expandable arm 230; designated in annotated Fig. 23) and an arm tube (designated in annotated Fig. 23), the distal tube and the arm tube projecting from the main catheter when the main catheter is in the deployed configuration (Fig. 23 and annotated Fig. 23), the distal tube and the arm tube projecting radially from the main catheter in a same plane when the main catheter is in the deployed configuration (Examiners note: the designated arm tube and distal tube have at least one plane in common as the cutting wire extends from the distal tube to the arm tube parallel to the longitudinal axis);
a cutting wire (recessing wire 1040; designated in annotated Fig. 23) extending between the distal tube and the arm tube (col. 23 line 63 – col. 24 line 13, and Fig. 23), the cutting wire projecting outwardly from the main catheter when the main catheter is in a deployed configuration (configuration shown in Fig. 23) (Fig. 23 and annotated Fig. 23).
However, the embodiment of Fig. 23 of Woolfson is silent regarding (i) the main catheter comprising a retractable external sheath, the external sheath retracted when the main catheter is in a deployed configuration and (ii) wherein the distal tube and arm tube are retractable within the main catheter and covered by the external sheath when the main catheter is in an undeployed configuration.
As to the above, Kheradvar teaches a main catheter comprising a retractable sheath (sheath 104) for an expandable medical device (heat valve 101; which is equated to the expandable resector 1025 of Woolfson), for the purpose of allowing the user to selectively cover, uncover, or recover the expandable medical device which allows for the expandable medical device to traverse the vasculature without unintentionally damaging the vasculature and for the purpose of allowing the user to reposition the expandable medical device or remove it altogether if needed (paragraphs [0009], [0019], [0116], and Fig. 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the main catheter of Woolfson to incorporate the retractable sheath, as taught by Kheradvar, for the purpose of covering the expandable resector as the device traverses the vasculature, thereby preventing any unwanted damage to the vasculature, and for the purpose of being able to recover and reposition the expandable resector without causing undo harm to healthy tissue that could be damaged when reorienting the expandable resector when in the expanded state. With respect to (ii), it should be understood that the limitation is an intended use limitation which requires only that the structure of the prior art be capable of functioning in the manner claimed; and as discussed above, the sheath is retractable, therefore, the distal tube and arm tube are retractable within the main catheter and capable of being covered by the sheath when the main catheter is in an undeployed configuration. Thus the combination encompasses the limitation above.
Annotated Figure 23 of Woolfson
PNG
media_image1.png
860
651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above, the combination of Woolfson and Kheradvar teaches the device of claim 1. Additionally, Woolfson discloses wherein the cutting wire (recessing wire 1040; designated in annotated Fig. 23) is operable to cut aortic valve leaflets by moving in a reciprocating motion (col. 23 line 63 – col. 24 line 13, and Fig. 23).
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above, the combination of Woolfson and Kheradvar teaches the device of claim 1. Additionally, Woolfson discloses wherein the cutting wire (recessing wire 1040; designated in annotated Fig. 23) is operable to cut aortic valve leaflets by moving in a rotating motion (col. 23 line 63 – col. 24 line 13, and Fig. 23).
Regarding claims 6, 7, 8, 16, 17, and 18, as discussed above, the combination of Woolfson and Kheradvar teaches the device of claim 1. Additionally, Woolfson discloses wherein the distal tube comprises a U-shaped tube (expandable arm 1030; designated in annotated Fig. 23) with an open end (cutting window 1045; designated in annotated Fig. 23) that faces towards the proximal end of the catheter and an open face (cutting window 1045; designated in annotated Fig. 23) of the arm tube (expandable arm 1030; designated in annotated Fig. 23), wherein the cutting wire (recessing wire 1040; designated in annotated Fig. 23) extends between the open end of the U- shaped tube and the open end of the arm (see annotated Fig. 23).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Woolfson discloses a cardiac cutting device (expandable resector 1025) (abstract, col. 23 line 63 – col. 24 line 13, and Fig. 23) comprising:
a main catheter (see annotated Fig. 23) adapted for femoral insertion into a patient's vasculature in an over-the- wire method (Examiner’s note: it should be understood that the preceding limitation is intended use which requires only that the prior art be capable of functioning in the manner claimed. With that said, the structure of the prior art is capable of functioning in the manner claimed);
a distal tube (expandable arm 230; designated in annotated Fig. 23) and an arm tube (designated in annotated Fig. 23), the distal tube and the arm tube projecting from the main catheter when the main catheter is in the deployed configuration (Fig. 23 and annotated Fig. 23), the distal tube and the arm tube projecting radially from the main catheter in a same plane when the main catheter is in the deployed configuration (Examiners: the designated arm tube and distal tube have at least one plane in common as the cutting wire extends from the distal tube to the arm tube parallel to the longitudinal axis);
a cutting wire (recessing wire 1040; designated in annotated Fig. 23) extending between the distal tube and the arm tube (col. 23 line 63 – col. 24 line 13, and Fig. 23).
However, the embodiment of Fig. 23 of Woolfson is silent regarding (i) the main catheter comprising a retractable external sheath, the external sheath retracted when the main catheter is in a deployed configuration and (ii) [claim 13] wherein the distal tube and arm tube are retractable within the main catheter and covered by the external sheath when the main catheter is in an undeployed configuration.
As to the above, Kheradvar teaches a main catheter comprising a retractable sheath (sheath 104) for an expandable medical device (heat valve 101; which is equated to the expandable resector 1025 of Woolfson), for the purpose of allowing the user to selectively cover, uncover, or recover the expandable medical device which allows for the expandable medical device to traverse the vasculature without unintentionally damaging the vasculature and for the purpose of allowing the user to reposition the expandable medical device or remove it altogether if needed (paragraphs [0009], [0019], and [0116]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the main catheter of Woolfson to incorporate the retractable sheath, as taught by Kheradvar, for the purpose of covering the expandable resector as the device traverses the vasculature, thereby preventing any unwanted damage to the vasculature, and for the purpose of being able to recover and reposition the expandable resector without causing undo harm to healthy tissue that could be damaged when reorienting the expandable resector when in the expanded state. With respect to (ii), it should be understood that the limitation is an intended use limitation which requires only that the structure of the prior art be capable of functioning in the manner claimed; and as discussed above, the sheath is retractable, therefore, the distal tube and arm tube are retractable within the main catheter and capable of being covered by the sheath when the main catheter is in an undeployed configuration. Thus the combination encompasses the limitation above.
Annotated Figure 23 of Woolfson
PNG
media_image1.png
860
651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, as discussed above, the combination of Woolfson and Kheradvar teaches the device of claim 1. Additionally, Woolfson discloses wherein the cutting wire (recessing wire 1040; designated in annotated Fig. 23) is operable to cut aortic valve leaflets by moving in a reciprocating motion (col. 23 line 63 – col. 24 line 13, and Fig. 23).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woolfson et al (US 8,771,302 B2) in view of Kheradvar et al (US 2017/0360557 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McDonald (US 2017/0027600 A1).
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above, the combination of Woolfson and Kheradvar teach the cardiac cutting device of claim 1.
However, the combination is silent regarding (i) wherein the wherein the cutting wire comprises a diamond wire.
As to the above, McDonald teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a cardiac cutter (cutter 10) comprising a cutting wire (cutting wire 19) comprising a diamond wire (diamond coated wire) (abstract and paragraphs [0023 – 0026]).
It should be understood that Woolfson and McDonald are known references in the art that teach a cardiac cutting device comprising cutting wire (abstract, col. 23 line 63 – col. 24 line 13, and Fig. 23 – Woolfson ; abstract and paragraphs [0023 – 0026] – McDonald); and the Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have substituted one cutting wire material for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and resulted in the modified wire of Woolfson being able to function as intended to properly cut the tissue. The Examiner notes the rejection above is based on KSR int’l Co. V. Teleflex inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), rational B, outlined in MPEP 2143.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woolfson et al (US 8,771,302 B2) and in view of Kheradvar et al (US 2017/0360557 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Aitall (US 5,441,483) and Mujwid (US 2013/0110126 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, as discussed above, the combination of Woolfson and Kheradvar teaches the cardiac cutting device of claims 1 and 12. Additionally, Woolfson teaches, in col. 23 line 63 – col. 24 line 6, wherein the wire 1040 (i.e., the cutting wire) is reciprocally driven; and because the wire 1040 (i.e., the cutting wire) is reciprocally driven it would be obvious for the system to comprise a controller for actuating the cutting wire from outside the patient’s body wherein the cutting wire is configured to extend from the main catheter to the controller for the purpose of allowing the user to control and reciprocate the wire in order to cut the tissue as intended. Therefore, the combination of Woolfson and Kheradvar makes obvious a controller for actuating the cutting wire.
However, the combination of Woolfson and Kheradvar is silent regarding (i) the controller comprising a tension adjustment bolt for adjusting the tension on the cutting wire when the main catheter is in a deployed configuration.
As to the above, Aitall teaches a vascular catheter comprising a wire (tension wire 173) and a controller (handle 200) comprising a tension adjustment knob (member 208) which can adjust the tension in the during assembly of the handle (col. 12 line 62 – col. 13 line 12).
Additionally, Mujwid teaches a cutting device (instrument 10) for cutting tissue comprising a cutting wire (cutting wire 40; which equate to the cutting wire 1040 of Woolfson), wherein the device includes an actuating mechanism, at a proximal end of the device (i.e., a handle), for controlling the tension applied to the cutting wire (cutting wire 40) (paragraph [0045]). Therefore, Mujwid teaches or makes obvious a tensions mechanism for tensioning a cutting wire.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Woolfson in view of Kheradvar to incorporate a tension adjustment knob, based on the teachings of Aitall and Muiwid, for the purpose of adjusting the tension on the wire during the handle assembly in order to have the desired tension on the wire needed to effectively reciprocate the cutting wire for the purpose of cutting the tissue.
Claims 10, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woolfson et al (US 8,771,302 B2) and in view of Kheradvar et al (US 2017/0360557 A1), Aitall (US 5,441,483), and Mujwid (US 2013/0110126 A1), as applied to claims 9 and 19 above, and further in view of Summers et al (US 5,431,673).
Regarding claims 10, 11, and 20, as discussed above, the combination of Woolfson, Kheradvar, Aitall, and Mujwid teaches the device of claims 9 and 19 above. Additionally, Woolfson further makes obvious a controller comprising an actuator for reciprocating the cutting wire (see Examiner’s note in the rejection of Claims 9 and 19 above).
However, the combination of Woolfson, Kheradvar, Aitall, and Mujwid is silent regarding (i) wherein the controller comprises a drive tab operable to move the cutting wire back and forth in a reciprocal motion which is operable by sliding the tab back and forth.
As to the above, Summers teaches a surgical cutting device (catheter 10 and cutter element housing 14) comprising a reciprocating cutter (cutter 86; which equates to the reciprocating cutting wire of Woolfson) and a controller (cutter element housing 14) comprising a drive tab (slide member32) operable to move the cutter back and forth in a reciprocal motion by sliding the drive tab back and forth (abstract, col. 4 line 17 – col. 5 line 6, and Figs. 1 and 3).
It should be understood that Woolfson and Summers are known references in the art that teach a surgical cutting device comprising a reciprocal cutting tool (abstract, col. 23 line 63 – col. 24 line 13, and Fig. 23 – Woolfson ; abstract, col. 4 line 17 – col. 5 line 6, and Figs. 1 and 3 – Summers); and the Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have substituted one actuation device for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and resulted in the modified system of Woolfson being able to function as intended to properly cut the tissue by reciprocating the cutting wire. The Examiner notes the rejection above is based on KSR int’l Co. V. Teleflex inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), rational B, outlined in MPEP 2143.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Munro (US 5,437,665) and Farin et al (US 2014/0243822 A1) teach a surgical cutter with a cutting wire and two shafts that extend at an angle with respect to the main catheter.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Restaino whose telephone number is (571)272-4748. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
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.
/Andrew Restaino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771