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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 14 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending; claims 16-20 have been withdrawn; and claims 1-15 currently are under consideration for patentability.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 11 December 2025 has been acknowledged and considered by the Examiner.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jahrmarkt (US 2016/0114138 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jahrmarkt describes an intravascular device 340, comprising a core 350 having a terminal section adjacent to a distal end of the core ([0072]), wherein the terminal section includes a wide portion ([0072], wider portion at proximal end), a tapered portion connected to a distal end of the wide portion and having a width that tapers in a proximal to distal direction ([0072]), and a narrow portion connected to a distal end of the tapered portion ([0074]), wherein the wide portion has a width greater than the width of the narrow portion ([0072]), and wherein the narrow portion has a shorter length than the wide portion (relative lengths as stated in [0072], [0074]).
Regarding claim 2, Jahrmarkt describes wherein the narrow portion has a length of 10% to less than 50% of the length of the terminal section (relative lengths as stated in [0072], [0074]).
Regarding claim 3, Jahrmarkt describes wherein the terminal section has a length of approximately 0.5 cm to approximately 3 cm ([0074]).
Regarding claim 4, Jahrmarkt describes a tube having a proximal section and a distal section, the tube coupled to the core such that a distal section of the core passes into and is encompassed by the tube ([0072], [0074], coil element 362 forms a tubular lumen), wherein the distal section of the tube is coupled to the distal section of the core at an attachment point disposed proximally from a distal end of the core ([0074], figure 6), and wherein the distal end of the core is not coupled to the tube (figure 6, tip section 367 extends beyond coil sections 362).
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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jahrmarkt in view of Lippert et al. (US 2018/0015263 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Jahrmarkt describes the intravascular device of claim 4 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the attachment point is disposed approximately 1 cm to approximately 5 cm from the distal end of the core. However, Lippert also describes intravascular devices, including an attachment point for a distal portion of a core and a tube, wherein the attachment point is disposed approximately 1 cm to approximately 5 cm from the distal end of the core ([0024]). As Lippert is also directed towards intravascular devices and is in a similar field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the attachment point at a position similar to that described by Lippert when using the device described by Jahrmarkt, as doing so advantageously allows the resulting device to reach and target a desired location.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 6, Jahrmarkt describes the intravascular device of claim 4, and Lippert describes a tube coupled to the core of an intravascular device ([0008], [0036]). Lippert further describes wherein the tube comprises a wall, an interior lumen, and a plurality of fenestrations extending through the wall and exposing the lumen, the plurality of fenestrations defining a plurality of axially extending beams and a plurality of circumferentially extending rings ([0011]). However, Jahrmarkt, Lippert, and the other prior art of record do not disclose or suggest incorporating “a wavy ring section, wherein the rings of the wavy ring section each comprise a circumference that varies axially along a longitudinal axis of the device” as recited. The Examiner notes that Applicants describe the criticality of the shape and configuration of the wavy ring section, for example in paragraphs [0044] - [0050] of the published Specification. Applicants state that the claimed configurations “enable the outer tube 106, while bending, to eliminate to a greater degree space between the rings 112 on the side of the tube 106 in the bending direction…the rings 112 may be packed closer together on the same side of the outer tube 106 as the bending direction, enabling the outer tube 106 to bend at a faster rate and increasing the flexibility of the device 100” ([0044]). As a result, the Examiner respectfully submits that modifying the fenestrations on the tube described by Lippert in order to introduce a “wavy ring section” as recited would not be an obvious matter of an aesthetic design change. Further, Lippert already accounts for enhancing the bending of the device and allowing the device to curve as necessary in order to reach a desired target ([0005], [0008], [0031]), thereby rendering unnecessary the incorporation of a wavy ring section.
Numerous other prior art devices, including many devices assigned to Scientia Vascular, LLC, describe similar intravascular devices with tapering sections and fenestrations which allow the intravascular device to be positioned as necessary. For example, please see Lippert et al. (US 2018/0177517 A1, figures 2A-B, 4A-D), Snyder et al. (US 2019/0255290 A1, figure 3), and Lippert et al. (US 2018/0193607 A1, figures 7 and 8). Similar devices are also described by Cottone et al. (US 2023/0355927 A1, figures 6a-c) and Poor et al. (US 2023/0330388 A1, figures 3A, 26, 27), among many others. However, as all of these devices already account for bending, curving, and torquing the device as necessary, the Examiner respectfully submits that the skilled artisan will not be motivated to incorporate a wavy ring section with a three-dimensional structure similar to that recited in the pending claims into these devices.
Therefore, the inventive features recited in the pending claims are not disclosed by the prior art and are not suggested by an obvious combination of the most analogous prior art elements.
Claims 7 through 15 depend on claim 6 and contain at least the same allowable subject matter as claim 6.
Statement on Communication via Internet
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. Where a written authorization is given by the applicant, communications via Internet e-mail, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used. USPTO employees are NOT permitted to initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail unless there is a written authorization of record in the patent application by the applicant. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please refer to MPEP 502.03 for guidance on Communications via Internet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Ankit D. Tejani, whose telephone number is 571-272-5140. The Examiner may normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30AM through 5:00PM 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, Carl Layno, can be reached by telephone at 571-272-4949. 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 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.
/Ankit D Tejani/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights