DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's amendments and remarks, filed 4/29/26 are fully acknowledged by the Examiner. Currently, claims 1 and 4-20 are pending with claims 2-3 canceled, and claims 1, 9-11, 14, and 16 amended. Applicant's amendment to claims 10 and 14 has overcome the previously filed 35 USC 112(d) rejection. The following is a complete response to the 4/29/26 communication.
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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buysman (US 2015/0119883).
Regarding claim 1, Buysman teaches a segmented spine comprising:
a first electrode (par. [0031] electrode on electrode strut 100, along section C);
a first spine strut comprising a first attachment point rotatably coupled with the first electrode (section F strut as in Fig. 3 rotatably coupled with electrode on section C), the first spine strut further comprises a third attachment point configured to engage with a distal retention hub (best seen in Fig. 4 with connecting ring 230 connecting to the distal end of analogous strut structures), the first attachment point being configured to pivot around a hinge axis defined by the first attachment point (section F strut with hinge component best seen in Fig. 4 to make the basket structure); and
a second spine strut comprising a second attachment point configured to couple with the first electrode (section E strut as in Fig. 3),the first attachment point and the second attachment point being configured to allow expansion and contraction of the segmented spine between an expanded form and an inverted form by rotation of the first spine strut around the hinge axis relative to the first electrode (par. [0019]).
Regarding claim 4, Buysman teaches wherein the first attachment point of the first spine strut and the second attachment point of the second spine strut are configured to permit the first spine strut and second spine strut to rotate around the respective attachment point (attachment of F and E portions to C allows for the struts to expand radially).
Regarding claim 5, Buysman teaches a second electrode (Fig. 4);
a third spine strut comprising a fifth attachment point configured to engage with the second electrode (section F strut as in Fig. 3); and a fourth spine strut comprising a sixth attachment point configured to engage with the second electrode (section E strut as in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Buysman teaches wherein the third spine strut further comprises a seventh attachment point configured to engage with a distal retention hub (best seen in Fig. 4 with connecting ring 230 connecting to the distal end of analogous strut structures), and the fourth spine strut further comprises an eighth attachment point configured to engage with a tubular shaft (par. [0031] bushing tab connecting to shaft 10).
Regarding claim 7, Buysman teaches wherein the fifth attachment point of the third spine strut and the sixth attachment point of the fourth spine strut are configured to permit the third spine strut and fourth spine strut to rotate around the respective attachment point (attachment of F and E portions to C allows for the struts to expand radially).
Regarding claim 8, Buysman teaches wherein a plurality of segmented spines are configured to move from an inverted tubular configuration to an expanded spherical configuration (par. [0023] expanded and collapsed configurations).
Regarding claim 9, Buysman teaches an expandable basket assembly comprising:
a plurality of segmented spines disposed about a longitudinal axis and coupled to each other (200), each
of the plurality of segmented spines comprising:
a first electrode disposed along the longitudinal axis (par. [0031] electrode on electrode strut 100, along section C);
a first spine strut rotatably coupled to the first electrode (section F strut as in Fig. 3), the first spine strut further comprising a first attachment point configured to pivot around a hinge axis defined by the first attachment point (section F strut with hinge component best seen in Fig. 4 to make the basket structure); and
a second spine strut coupled to the first electrode (section E strut as in Fig. 3),the first attachment point and the second attachment point being configured to allow expansion and contraction of the segmented spine between an expanded form and an inverted form by rotation of the first spine strut around the hinge axis relative to the first electrode (par. [0019]).
Regarding claim 10, Buysman teaches wherein the first spine strut further comprises a second
attachment point configured to engage with a distal retention hub (best seen in Fig. 4 with connecting
ring 230 connecting to the distal end of analogous strut structures), and the second spine strut further comprises a third attachment point configured to engage with a tubular shaft (par. [0031] bushing tab connecting to shaft 10).
Regarding claim 11, Buysman teaches wherein a first attachment point of the first spine strut and the second spine strut are configured to permit the first spine strut and second spine strut to rotate around the first attachment point (attachment of F and E portions to C allows for the struts to expand radially).
Regarding claim 12, Buysman teaches wherein the plurality of segmented spines are configured to move from an inverted tubular configuration to an expanded spherical configuration (par. [0023] expanded and collapsed configurations).
Regarding claim 13, Buysman teaches wherein each of the plurality of segmented spines further comprise:
a second electrode (Fig. 4, another of electrodes on similar struts);
a third spine strut (section F strut on Fig. 3); and
a fourth spine strut (section E strut on Fig. 3), wherein the third spine strut and the fourth spines strut each comprise a fourth attachment point configured to engage with the second electrode (F and E connect to C as in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Buysman teaches wherein the third spine strut further comprises a fifth attachment point configured to engage with a distal retention hub (best seen in Fig. 4 with connecting ring 230 connecting to the distal end of analogous strut structures), and the fourth spine strut further comprises a sixth attachment point configured to engage with a tubular shaft (par. [0031] bushing tab connecting to shaft 10).
Regarding claim 15, Buysman teaches wherein the plurality of segmented spines are configured to form a first portion and a second portion configured to mate with each other to retain a distal portion of each of the plurality of segmented spines at a central spine intersection (spines form a first proximal portion and second distal portion that mate with each other as in at least Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, Buysman teaches further comprising a spine retention hub disposed proximate a distal end of a tubular shaft (bushing as in par. [0036]), the spine retention hub comprising a cylindrical member including a plurality of relief lands disposed on an outer surface of the cylindrical member to allow each spine strut to be fitted into the relief land and retained therein (par. [0036]), the spine retention hub further comprising at least one electrode disposed at a distal portion of the spine retention hub (electrodes from the spines coming out of the bushing).
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) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buysman in view of Korbis (US 5,928,228).
Regarding claim 17, Buysman teaches is not explicit wherein the plurality of segmented spines comprises spine loops, each spine loop comprising a single unitary loop including a distal loop and two ends secured between the tubular shaft and in one of the relief lands of the spine retention hub, the distal loops overlapping within the distal retention hub.
However, Korbis teaches a basket with spine loops with a single unitary loop (42 as Fig. 3), secured to a tubular shaft at two ends and in one of the relief lands of the spine retention hub (42 secured to base as in Fig. 10), the distal loops overlapping within the distal retention hub (as in Fig. 10 with hub 24).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify Buysman with the basket spine loops of Korbis as a way of connecting the splines in a basket structure.
Regarding claim 18, Buysman is silent, but Korbis teaches wherein the distal retention hub further comprises:
two or more protrusions positioned on a first portion and/or a second portion (protrusions 61), the plurality of segmented spines fitting within paths formed between the two or more protrusions (splines forming paths as in Fig. 8); and
two or more indentations positioned on the opposite portion of the first portion and the second portion (indentations 52), the indentations engaging the protrusions to clamp the first portion to the second portion (as in Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify Buysman with the basket spine loops of Korbis as a way of connecting the splines in a basket structure.
Regarding claim 19, Buysman teaches wherein each electrode comprises a wire relief adjacent a lumen to allow for one or more wires to extend adjacent to the lumen (Fig. 5, space for wire to travel adjacent a lumen), the lumen being disposed symmetrically about a longitudinal axis of each electrode (Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buysman in view of Chu (US 2013/0256302).
Regarding claim 20, Buysman teaches:
a plurality of wires each electrically joined to a respective electrode (par. [0039] wire 304 for each electrode), but is silent regarding the particulars.
However, Chu teaches wherein at least a portion of the wires of the plurality of the wires respectively comprises a plurality of strands and an insulative jacket circumscribing the plurality of the strands (106 with strands, and jacket 118 as in par. [0198]), and wherein each strand of the plurality of strands respectively comprises an electrically conductive core material comprising a first electrical conductivity and an electrically conductive cover material comprising a second electrical conductivity less than the first electrical conductivity (strands of Ag plated Cu), the electrically conductive cover material circumscribing the electrically conductive core material (Ag plates the Cu as in par. [0198]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Buysman with the wire structure of Chu, to allow for structure of the wire.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that 100 is a single strut such that sections F and E are part of the same strut. The strut as defined in the rejection does not necessarily have to match the definition provided by Buysman. However, a broad view of a strut would be a rod or bar that resists compression. Sections of the strut of Buysman would fall under this definition.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are dependent on arguments to claim 1 which have been addressed above.
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 BO OUYANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 303-297-4276. 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.
/BO OUYANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights