DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This action is responsive to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 12/22/2023, as well as the 01/19/2026 Response to Restriction Requirement.
3. Claims 25-49 are pending, and claims 48 & 49 have been withdrawn from further consideration. Accordingly, claims 25-47 have been examined on the merits.
Election/Restriction
4. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 25-47) in the reply filed on 01/19/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 48 & 49 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
5. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The as-filed Specification lacks section headings identifying the various sections of the Specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Drawings
6. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(I) for having a line and shading quality that is too dark distinguish between different features, and too dark to be reproduced. See, e.g., FIGS. 1b, 1c, 2a-2c, 3a-e, 4a-4b, 5, 6a-6b, 7a-7b, 8a-8b, 9, 10a-10b, 11a-11b, 12a-12c, 13a-13d, 14a-14b, 15, 16a-16b, 17a-17b, 18a-18c, 21a-21f, 22a-22b, 23, 24a-24b, 25-30, 31a-31b, 32a-32b, & 37.
7. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
8. Claims 36 & 47 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. In claim 36, line 1, the recitation of “according to claims 31” should instead recite --according to claim 31--.
b. In claim 47, line 1, the recitation of “a medical device according to claim 25” should instead recite --the medical device according to claim 25--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. 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.
10. Claims 29, 37, & 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
11. Claim 29 recites the limitation “a mechanical attachment mechanism, in particular a mechanical attachment mechanism comprising a shape-change element” in lines 2-3. The phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
12. Claim 37 recites the limitation “the activation mechanism” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this recitation in the claim.
13. Claim 41 recites the limitation “wherein a size (S) in a direction (r) perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the medical device is smaller than 3 mm when attached to the thrombus” in lines 1-3. This recitation renders the claim indefinite, because it is not clear what structural element is being referred to by the recitation of “a size (S).” In other words, a “size (S)” of what?
As such, the structure required by the claim is not clear, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
14. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
I. Rejections Under § 102 Based on U.S. 2008/0065012 to Hebert et al.
15. Claims 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 34-36, 38, 40, 42, 45, & 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0065012 to Hebert et al. (“Hebert”).
16. Regarding claim 25, Hebert discloses a medical device [sheath (104) - ¶[0077]; FIGS. 5-8] for retrieving a thrombus [clot (C)] from a vessel [vessel (V)], comprising an attachment element [four arms (102a, 102b, 102c, 102d) with adhesive provided thereon - ¶[0077]; FIGS. 5-8], arranged at a distal end of the medical device [FIG. 7], wherein the attachment element is adapted to attach to a proximal face of the thrombus such that the thrombus is retrievable by exerting a pulling force on the attachment element [¶’s [0077]-[0078]; FIGS. 5-8].
17. Regarding claim 26, Hebert discloses all of the limitations of claim 25 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Hebert further discloses wherein the attachment element comprises a biological attachment mechanism [the outer surface of arms (102a, 102b, 102c, 102d) includes an adhesive (106) (¶’s [0077]-[0078]), an example of which comprises fibrin glue (see ¶[0068); those skilled in the art will readily appreciate that fibrin glue is a well-known biological topical adhesive].
18. Regarding claim 28, Hebert discloses all of the limitations of claim 25 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Hebert further discloses wherein the attachment element comprises a chemical attachment mechanism [the outer surface of arms (102a, 102b, 102c, 102d) includes an adhesive (106) - ¶’s [0077]-[0078]; see also ¶[0068]].
19. Regarding claim 29, Hebert discloses all of the limitations of claim 25 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Hebert further discloses wherein the attachment element comprises a mechanical attachment mechanism, in particular a mechanical attachment mechanism comprising a shape-change element [see ¶[0077] (“Turning first to FIGS. 5-8, shape memory tube 100, preferably made of Nitinol (although other shape memory materials such as platinum or shape memory plastic are contemplated), is cut at its distal end into quarter sections to form four arms 102a, 102b, 102c and 102d. Initially, when inside the delivery sheath 104 for insertion, the arms 102a-102d are maintained in more of a closed position. When exposed from the sheath 104, either by movement of the sheath 104, tube 100, or both, the arms 102a-102d return to their open shape memory position as shown in FIGS. 6 and 7”)].
20. Regarding claim 31, Hebert discloses all of the limitations of claim 25 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Hebert further discloses an activation mechanism [slidable tube (100) - ¶[0077]; FIGS. 5-8], wherein the attachment element [four arms (102a, 102b, 102c, 102d) with adhesive provided thereon] has an activated state [a deployed configuration - e.g., FIGS. 7, 8] and a deactivated state [a delivery configuration - e.g., FIG. 5], wherein in the deactivated state [delivery configuration - FIG. 5], the attachment element is adapted to not interact with a vessel wall or with the thrombus [see FIG. 5] and in the activated state [deployed configuration - e.g., FIGS. 7, 8] the attachment element is adapted to interact with the thrombus [clearly shown in FIGS. 7-8], wherein the activation mechanism [slidable tube (100)] is adapted to bring the attachment element at least from the deactivated state to the activated state [see, e.g., ¶[0077] (“When exposed from the sheath 104, either by movement of the sheath 104, tube 100, or both, the arms 102a-102d return to their open shape memory position as shown in FIGS. 6 and 7”)].
21. Regarding claim 34, Hebert discloses all of the limitations of claim 25 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Hebert further discloses wherein the medical device is formed by at least a part of a catheter device [e.g., ¶[0071]].
22. Regarding claim 35, Hebert discloses all of the limitations of claim 31 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Hebert further discloses wherein the activation mechanism [slidable tube (100)] comprises a mechanism adapted to release at least the attachment element [the mechanism used to advance/retract tube (100)] from a storage area of the medical device [from the distal end of sheath (104)].
23. Regarding claim 36, Hebert discloses all of the limitations of claim 31 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Hebert further discloses wherein the activation mechanism [slidable tube (100)] comprises an activatable material [slidable tube (100) comprises a shape memory tube such as Nitinol (see ¶[0077]), which is a known, activatable shape memory alloy (SMA)].
24. Regarding claim 38, Hebert discloses all of the limitations of claim 25 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Hebert further discloses an extension member [slidable tube (100) - ¶[0077]; FIGS. 5-8], extendable in an axial direction [clearly shown in FIGS. 5-8] and adapted for generation of an axial force on the thrombus [movement of slidable tube (100), either proximally or distally, generates an axial force (pulling or pushing) on the clot].
25. Regarding claim 40, Hebert discloses all of the limitations of claim 25 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Hebert further discloses wherein the attachment element [four arms (102a, 102b, 102c, 102d) with adhesive provided thereon] comprises a substantially flat surface adapted for attachment to the thrombus [as clearly shown in FIG. 6B, the surfaces of four arms (102a, 102b, 102c, 102d) are substantially flat].
26. Regarding claim 42, Hebert discloses all of the limitations of claim 25 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Hebert further discloses wherein the attachment element is smaller, in a direction (r) perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the medical device, than a maximum size of the medical device, when attached to the thrombus [clearly shown in FIG. 8].
27. Regarding claim 45, Hebert discloses all of the limitations of claim 25 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Hebert further discloses at least one drag member [Hebert teaches that an expandable mesh structure (broadly, a “drag member”) may be used with the arms [e.g., ¶[0081]; FIGS. 14A-14C].
28. Regarding claim 46, Hebert discloses all of the limitations of claim 35 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Hebert further discloses wherein the activation mechanism comprises an activatable material [slidable tube (100)] comprises an activatable material [slidable tube (100) comprises a shape memory tube such as Nitinol (see ¶[0077]), which is a known, activatable shape memory alloy (SMA)].
II. Rejections Under § 102 Based on U.S. 2021/0186540 to Taff et al.
29. Claims 25, 27, 30, 34, 37, & 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0186540 to Taff et al. (“Taff”).
30. Regarding claim 25, Taff discloses a medical device [apparatus (20) - ¶[0107]] for retrieving a thrombus from a vessel [e.g., ¶[0093] (“Embodiments of the present invention include various tubular thrombectomy devices for removing a thrombus from a blood vessel of a subject”)], comprising an attachment element [shaft (26) comprising two electrically-conductive circumferential portions: an active electrode (28), and a reference electrode (30) - ¶[0109]; FIG. 1], arranged at a distal end of the medical device [FIG. 1], wherein the attachment element is adapted to attach to a proximal face of the thrombus such that the thrombus is retrievable by exerting a pulling force on the attachment element [e.g., ¶[0094] (“The device is introduced into the subject's body, and is then advanced, typically under fluoroscopy, through the subject's vasculature, until the thrombus is reached. Subsequently, the active electrode is brought into contact with the thrombus, and a voltage is applied between the active electrode and the reference electrode. The applied voltage causes the active electrode to electrostatically attract the thrombus, such that the thrombus becomes ionically bonded (or “anchored”) to the active electrode. Subsequently to applying the voltage, or while continuing to apply the voltage, the device and the thrombus are removed from the subject”); see also ¶[0096] (“In some embodiments, the device further comprises an aspiration tube, through which the shaft is configured to pass. Prior to applying the voltage, the aspiration tube is advanced to the thrombus, and the shaft is then advanced from the aspiration tube until the active electrode, which is typically disposed at or near the distal end of the shaft, is contained within the thrombus, or at least contacts the thrombus. Subsequently, the voltage is applied between the active electrode and the reference electrode, thus anchoring the thrombus to the active electrode”)].
31. Regarding claim 27, Taff discloses all of the limitations of claim 25 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Taff further discloses wherein the attachment element comprises electrical contacts attached or attachable to an electrical conductor [electrodes (28, 30) - ¶’s [0109], [0118]] and adapted to create attachment through tissue change induced by temperature increase and/or electrical current voltage [e.g., ¶’s [0094], [0119] (“Via first electrically-conductive element 34 and second electrically-conductive element 38, power source 36 applies a voltage between the active electrode and the reference electrode, thus anchoring the thrombus to the active electrode via ionic attraction”)].
32. Regarding claim 30, Taff discloses all of the limitations of claim 25 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Taff further discloses a suction mechanism [e.g., ¶[0096[ (“In some embodiments, the device further comprises an aspiration tube, through which the shaft is configured to pass…. Following the anchoring of the thrombus, an aspirating device connected to the proximal end of the aspiration tube applies an axial suction force through the lumen of the tube. While the suction force is applied to the thrombus, the device is withdrawn from the subject”); ¶[0108]].
33. Regarding claim 34, Taff discloses all of the limitations of claim 25 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Taff further discloses wherein the medical device is formed by at least a part of a catheter device [broadly, aspiration tube (22) serves as a catheter - see ¶[0108] (“Apparatus 20 comprises an aspiration tube 22, which is configured to advance, through vasculature of the subject, to the thrombus. For example, if the thrombus is located in the middle cerebral artery (MCA), the tube may be inserted into the internal carotid artery (ICA), advanced through the ICA to the MCA, and then advanced through the MCA to the thrombus”)].
34. Regarding claim 37, Taff discloses all of the limitations of claim 25 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
As best understood [see rejection under § 112(b) above], Taff further discloses wherein the activation mechanism comprises a protection layer [broadly, an electrically-insulative circumferential portion of the shaft, referred to as a “spacer” 32, that serves to separate (and electrically insulate) the electrodes from one another - ¶[0109]].
35. Regarding claim 39, Taff discloses all of the limitations of claim 25 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Taff further discloses a sensor [e.g., formed by electrodes - for measuring impedance; see ¶[0104] (“In some embodiments, to facilitate the selective activation described above, the impedance between various pairs of electrodes may be measured, following the positioning of the electrodes at the thrombus. In general, the impedance of coagulated blood is higher than that of liquid blood. Hence, if a higher impedance is measured between a particular pair of electrodes, the pair may be activated; conversely, if a lower impedance is measured, the pair may not be activated. In some embodiments, to measure the impedance, an alternating current (having an amplitude that is typically less than 100 mA) is passed between the electrodes, and the voltage between the electrodes is measured. Alternatively, an alternating voltage (having an amplitude that is typically less than 100V) may be applied between the electrodes, and the current between the electrodes may be measured”)].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
36. 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.
37. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
I. Rejections Under § 103 Based on Hebert
38. Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebert.
39. Regarding claim 43, Hebert discloses all of the limitations of claim 31 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
While Hebert discloses that the device may be advanced through a microcatheter [see ¶[0071]], and that, even when deployed, the attachment element is capable being withdrawn through the delivery mechanism [see FIG. 8], Hebert does not disclose:
wherein the attachment element is configured such that a maximum size in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the medical device differs by less than 10% between the activated and the deactivated state.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hebert such that the arms (102a, 102b, 102c, 102d) be configured so that a maximum size in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the medical device differs by less than 10% between the activated (deployed configuration) and the deactivated state (delivery configuration) since the Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
40. Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebert in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0121672 to Folk (“Folk”).
41. Regarding claim 41, Hebert discloses all of the limitations of claim 25 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
As best understood [see rejection under § 112(b) above], while Hebert discloses that the device may be advanced through a microcatheter [see ¶[0071]], Hebert does not disclose:
wherein a size (S) in a direction (r) perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the medical device is smaller than 3 mm when attached to the thrombus.
Folk, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches that it was known in the art for the working end of a thrombectomy device, delivered via a microcatheter, to have a fully expanded diameter ranging from about 2 mm to about 6 mm [see ¶[0086] (“The medical device 100 may have various lengths and diameters. For example, the medical device 100 may have specific cross-sectional diameters, the diameters being measured when the medical device 100 is fully free to expand, ranging from about 2 mm to about 6 mm.”)].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hebert such that the arms (102a, 102b, 102c, 102d), when deployed and expanded (FIG. 6B), have a size commensurate with known, art-recognized devices including, e.g., a size (S) in a direction (r) perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the medical device is smaller than 3 mm when attached to the thrombus, since the Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
II. Rejections Under § 103 Based on Taff
42. Claims 32 & 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taff in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0330730 to Creighton et al. (“Creighton”) [made of record in Applicant’s 12/22/23 IDS].
43. Regarding claims 32 & 33, Taff discloses all of the limitations of claim 25 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Taff does not, however, disclose:
[claim 32] wherein the medical device comprises a microrobot equipped with the attachment element; nor
[claim 33] wherein the microrobot comprises at least one of a magnetic part and a controlling line, wherein the magnetic part is adapted to interact with a magnetic field, and/or wherein the controlling line is attachable or attached to a distal part of the microrobot.
Creighton, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed to magnetically controllable devices for interventional medical procedures including, e.g., for a thrombectomy [e.g., ¶’s [0020], [0052], [0069]]. More particularly, Creighton teaches that magnetically-controlled programmable magnetic devices may include wires, guidewires, catheters, radio-frequency wires, micro-catheters, caps, bands, braids, coils, lumens, thrombectomy systems, stents, aspiration tools, drug-delivery tools, aneurysm-filling coils, electrical leads, and embolization systems, and that the magnetically-controlled lumens may include catheters, micro-catheters, sheaths, tubes, pipes, conduits, and hoses [e.g., ¶[0071]]. Known, external magnetic fields are exerted on a device to induce a force or torque on the device, to cause a change in shape or orientation of the device, or induce a change or a temporal effect in a property of the medical device [e.g., ¶[0020]].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Taff such that the medical device comprise a microrobot equipped with the attachment element, the microrobot comprising a magnetic part, and wherein the magnetic part is adapted to interact with a magnetic field, since such a modification can provide navigational advantages for a range of conditions including, but not limited to, faster navigation to a desired region, better navigation of tortuous or difficult vascular geometries, improved access of smaller vessels, better control within small volumes, and beneficial use in small regions [¶[0068]].
44. Claims 44 & 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taff in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0236778 to Kim et al. (“Kim”).
45. Regarding claim 44, Taff discloses all of the limitations of claim 25 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Taff does not, however, disclose:
a propulsion member for generating an axial propulsion force.
Kim, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches surgical apparatuses, systems and procedures for controlling, navigating and deploying medical devices to a targeted site [¶[0002]].
More particularly, Kim teaches that it was known to use a robotic controller comprising a catheter driver [broadly, a “propulsion member”] configured to advance and retract a catheter having, a hollow interior, along a catheter advance and retract path [¶[0010]], including to facilitate deployment of a thrombectomy device, for example, but not limited to, a mechanical retriever or aspiration assembly for removing clots (i.e. occlusions) [¶[0011]].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Taff to include a propulsion member, such as the catheter driver of Kim, for generating an axial propulsion force, as taught by Kim, since such a modification would provide the benefit/advantage of facilitating the process of safely and reliably deploying the device of Taff to a target site for a practitioner.
46. Regarding claim 47, Taff teaches a system comprising[:]
a medical device according to claim 25 [see the rejection of claim 25 under § 102 based on Taff (above), which is incorporated herein], [and]
an imaging device [see, e.g., ¶[0168]].
Taff does not, however, teach:
a controlling unit, and
wherein the controlling unit is adapted to navigate the medical device to a target location in a vasculature.
Kim, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches surgical apparatuses, systems and procedures for controlling, navigating and deploying medical devices to a targeted site [¶[0002]].
More particularly, Kim teaches that it was known to use a robotic controller comprising a catheter driver configured to advance and retract a catheter having, a hollow interior, along a catheter advance and retract path [¶[0010]], including to facilitate deployment of a thrombectomy device, for example, but not limited to, a mechanical retriever or aspiration assembly for removing clots (i.e. occlusions) [¶[0011]].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Taff to include a controlling unit, wherein the controlling unit is adapted to navigate the medical device to a target location in a vasculature, as taught by Kim, since such a modification would provide the benefit/advantage of facilitating the process of safely and reliably deploying the device of Taff to a target site for a practitioner.
Conclusion
47. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bradford C. Blaise whose telephone number is (571)272-5617. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Linda Dvorak can be reached on 571-272-4764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bradford C. Blaise/Examiner, Art Unit 3794