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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/29/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 30-49 are currently pending. Claims 30 and 40 are currently amended. Claims 1-29 were previously cancelled. No new subject matter is added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 30-49 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claims 30-49 are now rejected in view of Henderson (US 5376071 A).
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.
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 30, 33-35, and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (US 10195320 B2) in view of Henderson (US 5376071 A).
Regarding Claim 30, Fisher teaches a blood filtering system (a removable filter module for a blood filtering apparatus, see Col. 1 ln 55-56; Figures 5A-B), comprising:
a chamber (reservoir 320 and hollow body 200);
a filter (filter module 500) positioned within the chamber and separating the chamber into a first chamber portion and a second chamber portion (filter module 500 separates the reservoir 320 and hollow body 200, see Figure 5A), wherein the filter is configured to (a) allow blood to pass therethrough from the first chamber portion to the second chamber portion (blood passes through the filter 500 in reservoir 320 before entering hollow body volume 200, see Figure 5A) and (b) inhibit clot material from passing therethrough from the first chamber portion to the second chamber portion (the filter module 500 of the apparatus 100 functions to separate blood clots from the blood volume, wherein blood is preferably drawn across the filter module 500 before entering the hollow body volume during the intake stroke, see Col. 8 ln 64-67);
a vacuum inlet into the first chamber portion (inlet of body valve 220, see Figure 5A),
a vacuum source outside the chamber (piston 400 located outside of hollow body 200) and configured to be fluidly coupled to the vacuum inlet and to generate vacuum pressure in the first chamber portion (piston 400 slidably disposed within the hollow body 200, see Figure 5A);
an aspiration inlet (inlet 300) into the first chamber portion and configured to be coupled to an aspiration catheter (components that can be attached to the inlet 300 include a needle, an IV tube, or any other suitable component, see Col. 6 ln 36-38) via an aspiration valve (inlet valve 302), wherein the aspiration inlet defines an aspiration inlet fluid path from the chamber to outside the chamber (see Figure 2); and
a reinfusion outlet from the second chamber portion (outlet 240 that functions to egress blood from the hollow body 200, see Figure 5A), wherein the reinfusion outlet defines a reinfusion outlet fluid path from the chamber to outside the chamber (see Figure 2).
Fisher and Evans teaches all of the limitations as discussed above. However, Fisher and Evans do not explicitly disclose wherein the vacuum inlet defines a vacuum inlet fluid path from the chamber to outside the chamber
Henderson teaches a an aspiration source (modified syringe assembly, see Figure 5); a canister defining a volume (internal of stopcock 16, see below) and having an aspiration port (see below), a first port (see below), and a second port (see below); and wherein each port defines a fluid path from the volume to outside the volume (ports lead from the volume to outside of the volume, see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
387
741
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fisher and Henderson are analogous because all teach a syringe device having multiple ports.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the vacuum port of Modified Evans and further include wherein the vacuum port defines a fluid path from the volume to outside the volume, as taught by Henderson. Henderson teaches it beneficial a stopcock having multiple ports to provide a user with the ability to select which of the ports will be in fluid communication with the well of the stopcock (see Col. 6 ln 16-19).
Regarding Claim 33, Fisher and Henderson teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 30 and Fisher further teaches wherein the chamber (reservoir 320 and hollow body 200) has a first end portion (end at the reservoir 320) and a second end portion opposite the first end portion (end at the hollow body 200), wherein the vacuum inlet (valve body 220) and aspiration inlet (inlet 300) are positioned proximate the first end portion (see Figure 5A), and wherein the reinfusion outlet is positioned proximate the second end portion (outlet 240 positioned in the end with the hollow body 200, see Figure 5A).
Regarding Claim 34, Fisher and Henderson teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 30 and Fisher further teaches wherein the vacuum source comprises a syringe (apparatus 100 is a syringe that has a piston 400 to created negative and positive pressure, see Figure 5A-B).
Regarding Claim 35, Fisher and Henderson teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 30 and Fisher further teaches wherein the vacuum source comprises an electric pump (the apparatus is preferably passive and manually operated by a user, but can alternatively be active and driven by an electronic system, see Col. 3 ln 47-49; i.e. an electronic pump).
Regarding Claim 38, Fisher and Henderson teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 30 and Fisher further teaches a reinfusion valve (outlet valve 242) fluidly coupled to the reinfusion outlet (coupled to outlet 240, see Figure 5A).
Regarding Claim 39, Fisher and Henderson teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 30 and Fisher further teaches a vacuum valve (body valve 220) fluidly coupled between the vacuum inlet and the vacuum source (see Figure 5A), wherein the vacuum valve is movable between (a) a first position that inhibits fluid flow from the first chamber portion to the vacuum source (body valve 220 can alternatively be an active valve (e.g., electrically driven), a two-way valve, or any other suitable valve, see Col. 13 ln 15-17; the valve can be in a closed state) and (b) a second position that permits fluid flow from the first chamber portion to the vacuum source (body valve 220 can alternatively be an active valve (e.g., electrically driven), a two-way valve, or any other suitable valve, see Col. 13 ln 15-17; the valve can be in an open state).
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher and Henderson, as applied in claim 30, and further in view of Mogi (US 20180338770 A1).
Regarding Claim 31, Modified Fisher teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in Claim 30. However, Fisher does not explicitly disclose wherein the aspiration valve is movable between (a) a first position that inhibits fluid flow from the aspiration catheter to the first chamber portion and (b) a second position that permits fluid flow from the aspiration catheter to the first chamber portion, wherein the vacuum source is configured to generate vacuum pressure in the first chamber portion when the aspiration valve is in the first position such that the first chamber portion stores the vacuum pressure.
Mogi teaches an aspiration catheter comprising a catheter body that can have a first end and a second end and an aspiration lumen extending through the catheter body (see Abstract); a aspiration valve (stopcock valve 104), wherein the aspiration valve (stopcock 104, see Figure 1A) is movable between (a) a first position that inhibits fluid flow from the aspiration catheter to the first chamber portion (a stopcock or valve 104 to control the suction and flow through the system 100, see Paragraph [0154]; the stop cock being closed) and (b) a second position that permits fluid flow from the aspiration catheter to the first chamber portion (a stopcock or valve 104 to control the suction and flow through the system 100, see Paragraph [0154]; the stop cock being opened), wherein the vacuum source is configured to generate vacuum pressure in the first chamber portion when the aspiration valve is in the first position such that the first chamber portion stores the vacuum pressure (when the valve 104 is in a closed positioned the suction source 102 can be generated, i.e. syringe is pulled and locked into place, see Paragraph [0154]).
Fisher, Henderson, and Mogi area analogous art because both teach a aspiration syringe having a valve.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the aspiration valve of Modified Fisher and replace it with a stopcock valve to manually control fluid flow a first closed position and second open position, as taught by Mogi. Mogi teaches embodiments of the assistive jet catheter systems presented herein reduce the instance or risk of the aspiration lumen of such systems from clogging during use. Therefore, the aspiration catheter embodiments presented herein can significantly improve patient safety and aspiration effectiveness (see Paragraph [0013]).
Regarding Claim 32, Modified Fisher teach all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 31 and Mogi further teaches wherein the aspiration valve is movable from the first position while the vacuum pressure is stored in the first chamber portion to the second position (moving valve 104 into an open position when vacuum is stored in the syringe, see Paragraph [0154]), thereby applying the vacuum pressure to the aspiration catheter such that the blood and the clot material are aspirated through the aspiration catheter into the first chamber portion (applying vacuum to the jet aspiration catheter 110 and allowing clot material to be aspirated into the syringe 102, see Figure 1).
Claims 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher and Henderson, as applied in claim 30, and further in view of Evans et al. (US 20010049486 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Evans”.
Regarding Claim 36, Modified Fisher teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in Claim 30. However, Modified Fisher does not explicitly disclose a reinfusion source configured to be fluidly coupled to the reinfusion outlet, wherein the reinfusion source is further configured to draw the blood through the filter and the reinfusion outlet.
Evans teaches methods and apparatus filter and reinfuse aspirate removed from body lumens following a medical procedure (see Abstract) comprising a reinfusion source (an infusion reservoir 21) configured to be fluidly coupled to the reinfusion outlet (fluidly coupled to the outlet of filter catheter tubing 19 via three way valve 22, see Paragraph [0030]), wherein the reinfusion source is further configured to draw the blood through the filter and the reinfusion outlet (reinfusion syringe 21 can draw blood through filter 20).
Fisher, Henderson, and Evans are analogous art because both teach a blood filtering system comprising a syringe.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the outlet of Modified Fisher and further include the outlet fluidly coupled to a reinfusion source to draw the blood through the filter and the reinfusion outlet, as taught by Evans. Evans teaches the filter system allows for 1) the controlled aspiration of body fluid such as blood and clot material from a blood vessel, 2) the filtration of such material to remove any unwanted blood clot particles, and 3) the reinfusion of the filtered material back into the patient to minimize the amount of blood product lost during the procedure (see Paragraph [0014]).
Regarding Claim 37, Modified Fisher teach all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 36 and Evans further teaches wherein the reinfusion source is a syringe (infusion reservoir 21 is a syringe, see Figure 1).
Claims 40 and 44-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et (US 10195320 B2) in view of Henderson (US 5376071 A), in further view of Mogi (US 20180338770 A1) and in further view of Evans (US 20010049486 A1).
Regarding Claim 40, Fisher teaches a blood filtering system (a removable filter module for a blood filtering apparatus, see Col. 1 ln 55-56; Figures 5A-B), comprising:
a chamber (reservoir 320 and hollow body 200);
a filter (filter module 500) positioned within the chamber and separating the chamber into a first chamber portion and a second chamber portion (filter module 500 separates the reservoir 320 and hollow body 200, see Figure 5A);
a vacuum inlet into the first chamber portion (inlet of body valve 220, see Figure 5A);
a vacuum source outside the chamber (portion of piston 400 located outside of hollow body 200) configured to be fluidly coupled to the vacuum inlet (piston 400 slidably disposed within the hollow body 200, see Figure 5A);
an aspiration inlet into the first chamber portion (inlet 300), wherein the aspiration inlet defines an aspiration inlet fluid path from the chamber to outside the chamber (see Figure 2);
a valve between the aspiration inlet and the aspiration catheter (inlet valve 302);
a fluid path extending through the aspiration catheter, through the valve, through the aspiration inlet, and into the first chamber portion (fluid path from the component that can be connected to inlet 300, through the inlet, and into the reservoir 320, see Figure 5A; Col. 6 ln 36-38), wherein the filter is configured to (a) allow the blood to pass therethrough from the first chamber portion to the second chamber portion (blood passes through the filter 500 in reservoir 320 before entering hollow body volume 200, see Figure 5A) and (b) inhibit the clot material from passing therethrough from the first chamber portion to the second chamber portion (the filter module 500 of the apparatus 100 functions to separate blood clots from the blood volume, wherein blood is preferably drawn across the filter module 500 before entering the hollow body volume during the intake stroke, see Col. 8 ln 64-67);
a reinfusion outlet from the second chamber portion (outlet 240 that functions to egress blood from the hollow body 200, see Figure 5A), wherein the reinfusion outlet defines a reinfusion outlet fluid path from the chamber to outside the chamber (see Figure 2).
Fisher teaches all of the limitations as discussed above. However, Fisher does not explicitly disclose wherein the vacuum inlet defines a vacuum inlet fluid path from the chamber to outside the chamber
Henderson teaches a an aspiration source (modified syringe assembly, see Figure 5); a canister defining a volume (internal of stopcock 16, see annotated Figure 5 above) and having an aspiration port (see annotated Figure 5 above), a first port (see annotated Figure 5 above), and a second port (see annotated Figure 5 above); and wherein each port defines a fluid path from the volume to outside the volume (ports lead from the volume to outside of the volume, see annotated Figure 5 above).
Fisher and Henderson are analogous because all teach a syringe device having multiple ports.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the vacuum port of Fisher and further include wherein the vacuum port defines a fluid path from the volume to outside the volume, as taught by Henderson. Henderson teaches it beneficial a stopcock having multiple ports to provide a user with the ability to select which of the ports will be in fluid communication with the well of the stopcock (see Col. 6 ln 16-19).
Fisher and Henderson teaches all of the limitations as discussed above. However, Fisher and Henderson do not explicitly disclose an aspiration catheter having a distal end portion, wherein the aspiration catheter is configured to be intravascularly advanced through the vasculature of the patient such that the distal end portion of the catheter is positioned proximate to clot material;
wherein the valve is movable between (a) a first position that inhibits fluid flow along the fluid path from the aspiration catheter to the first chamber portion and (b) a second position that permits fluid flow along the fluid path from the aspiration catheter to the first chamber portion,
the aspiration source is configured to generate vacuum pressure in the first chamber portion while the valve is in the first position,
the first chamber portion is configured to store the vacuum pressure while the valve is in the first position, and
the valve is movable from the first position while the vacuum pressure is stored in the first chamber portion to the second position, thereby applying the vacuum pressure to the aspiration catheter such that at least a portion of the clot material and blood are aspirated through the aspiration catheter into the first chamber portion.
Mogi teaches an aspiration catheter comprising a catheter body that can have a first end and a second end and an aspiration lumen extending through the catheter body (see Abstract) comprising:
an aspiration catheter (aspiration catheter 110) having a distal end portion (distal end 114 having opening 130, see Figures 1-2), wherein the aspiration catheter is configured to be intravascularly advanced through the vasculature of the patient such that the distal end portion of the catheter is positioned proximate to clot material (aspiration of a mass of thrombus T that is located distal to or upstream of the aspiration opening 130 of the assistive jet catheter body 112, see Figure 7; Paragraph [0164]);
wherein a valve (stopcock 104, see Figure 1A) is movable between (a) a first position that inhibits fluid flow along the fluid path from the aspiration catheter to the first chamber portion (a stopcock or valve 104 to control the suction and flow through the system 100, see Paragraph [0154]; the stop cock being closed) and (b) a second position that permits fluid flow along the fluid path from the aspiration catheter to the first chamber portion (a stopcock or valve 104 to control the suction and flow through the system 100, see Paragraph [0154]; the stop cock being opened),
the aspiration source is configured to generate vacuum pressure in the first chamber portion while the valve is in the first position,
the first chamber portion is configured to store the vacuum pressure while the valve is in the first position (when the valve 104 is in a closed positioned the suction source 102 can be generated, i.e. syringe is pulled and locked into place, see Paragraph [0154]), and
the valve is movable from the first position while the vacuum pressure is stored in the first chamber portion to the second position (moving valve 104 into an open position when vacuum is stored in the syringe, see Paragraph [0154]), thereby applying the vacuum pressure to the aspiration catheter such that at least a portion of the clot material and blood are aspirated through the aspiration catheter into the first chamber portion (applying vacuum to the jet aspiration catheter 110 and allowing clot material to be aspirated into the syringe 102, see Figure 1).
Fisher, Henderson, and Mogi area analogous art because both teach a aspiration syringe having a valve.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the aspiration valve of Modified Fisher and replace it with the stopcock valve connected to an aspiration catheter, as taught by Mogi. Mogi teaches embodiments of the assistive jet catheter systems presented herein reduce the instance or risk of the aspiration lumen of such systems from clogging during use. Therefore, the aspiration catheter embodiments presented herein can significantly improve patient safety and aspiration effectiveness (see Paragraph [0013]).
Modified Fisher teach all of the limitations as discussed above. However, Modified Fisher does not explicitly disclose a reinfusion catheter configured to be positioned within the vasculature of a patient, wherein the reinfusion catheter is configured to receive the filtered blood from the reinfusion outlet and to direct the filtered blood into the vasculature of the patient.
Evans teaches methods and apparatus filter and reinfuse aspirate removed from body lumens following a medical procedure (see Abstract) comprising a reinfusion catheter (infusion catheter 16) configured to be positioned within the vasculature of a patient (the re-infusion can be either directly back into the treatment site, or into a secondary location such as an adjacent vein, see Paragraph [0012]), wherein the reinfusion catheter is configured to receive the filtered blood from the reinfusion outlet and to direct the filtered blood into the vasculature of the patient (filter catheter tubing 19 has an outlet that is then connected to an infusion reservoir 21 by an additional 3-way valve 22; infusion reservoir 21 is linked to infusion catheter tubing 16 through the third port of 3-way valve 22, see Figure 1; Paragraph [0030]).
Modified Fisher and Evans are analogous art because both teach a blood filtering system comprising a syringe.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the outlet of Modified Fisher and further include a reinfusion catheter configured to receive the filtered blood from the reinfusion outlet and to direct the filtered blood into the vasculature of the patient, as taught by Evans. Evans teaches the filter system allows for 1) the controlled aspiration of body fluid such as blood and clot material from a blood vessel, 2) the filtration of such material to remove any unwanted blood clot particles, and 3) the reinfusion of the filtered material back into the patient to minimize the amount of blood product lost during the procedure (see Paragraph [0014]).
Regarding Claim 44, Modified Fisher teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 40 and Fisher further teaches wherein the vacuum source comprises a syringe (apparatus 100 is a syringe that has a piston 400 to created negative and positive pressure, see Figure 5A-B).
Regarding Claim 45, Modified Fisher teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 40 and Fisher further teaches wherein the vacuum source comprises an electric pump (the apparatus is preferably passive and manually operated by a user, but can alternatively be active and driven by an electronic system, see Col. 3 ln 47-49; i.e. an electronic pump).
Regarding Claim 46, Modified Fisher teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 40 and Evans further teaches a reinfusion source (an infusion reservoir 21) configured to
be fluidly coupled to the reinfusion outlet (fluidly coupled to the filter catheter tubing 19 via three way valve 22, see Paragraph [0030]),
draw the filtered blood through the reinfusion outlet out of the second chamber portion when the reinfusion source is fluidly coupled to the reinfusion outlet (see Figure 1; Paragraph [0038]),
be fluidly decoupled from the reinfusion outlet with the filtered blood in the reinfusion source (three way valve 22 can fluidly decouple the infusion reservoir from the filter catheter 19, see Figure 1),
be fluidly coupled to the reinfusion catheter with the filtered blood in the reinfusion source (infusion reservoir 21 fluidly coupled to the infusion catheter 16, see Figure 1) , and
drive the filtered blood into the reinfusion catheter when the reinfusion source is fluidly coupled to the reinfusion catheter (infusion reservoir 21 fluidly coupled to the infusion catheter 16 to drive blood back into the patient, see Paragraph [0035]).
Regarding Claim 47, Modified Fisher teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 46 and Evans further teaches wherein the reinfusion source is a syringe (infusion reservoir 21 is a syringe, see Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 48, Modified Fisher teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 40 and Fisher further teaches a reinfusion valve (outlet valve 242) fluidly coupled to the reinfusion outlet (coupled to outlet 240, see Figure 5A).
Regarding Claim 49, Modified Fisher teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 40 and Fisher further teaches a vacuum valve (body valve 220) fluidly coupled between the vacuum inlet and the vacuum source (see Figure 5A), wherein the vacuum valve is movable between (a) a first position that inhibits fluid flow from the first chamber portion to the vacuum source (body valve 220 can alternatively be an active valve (e.g., electrically driven), a two-way valve, or any other suitable valve, see Col. 13 ln 15-17; the valve can be in a closed state) and (b) a second position that permits fluid flow from the first chamber portion to the vacuum source (body valve 220 can alternatively be an active valve (e.g., electrically driven), a two-way valve, or any other suitable valve, see Col. 13 ln 15-17; the valve can be in an open state).
Claims 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modified Fisher as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Laub (US 20170043066 A1).
Regarding Claim 41, Modified Fisher teaches all of the limitations, as discussed above in claim 40. However, Modified Fisher does not explicitly disclose wherein the aspiration catheter has a size of 16 French or greater.
Laub teaches a system for removing material from the body of a patient, the system including a aspiration catheter (catheter 200, see Abstract; Figure 1A), wherein the aspiration catheter has a size of 16 French or greater (aspiration catheter has a French size of at least 20 Fr, see Paragraph [0028]).
Modified Fisher and Laub are analogous art because all teach a aspiration catheter for removing clot material.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the aspiration catheter of Modified Fisher and further include wherein the aspiration catheter has a size of 16 French or greater, as taught by Laub. Laub teaches the diameter of the aspiration catheter is beneficial to allow for aspiration of large thrombi and/or other solid materials from the patient (see Paragraph [0028]).
Regarding Claim 42, Modified Fisher teaches all of the limitations, as discussed above in claim 40. However, Modified Fisher does not explicitly disclose wherein the aspiration catheter has a size of 20 French or greater.
Laub teaches a system for removing material from the body of a patient, the system including a aspiration catheter (catheter 200, see Abstract; Figure 1A), wherein the aspiration catheter has a size of 20 French or greater (aspiration catheter has a French size of at least 20 Fr, see Paragraph [0028]).
Modified Fisher and Laub are analogous art because all teach a aspiration catheter for removing clot material.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the aspiration catheter of Modified Fisher and further include wherein the aspiration catheter has a size of 20 French or greater, as taught by Laub. Laub teaches the diameter of the aspiration catheter is beneficial to allow for aspiration of large thrombi and/or other solid materials from the patient (see Paragraph [0028]).
Regarding Claim 43, Modified Fisher teaches all of the limitations, as discussed above in claim 40. However, Modified Fisher does not explicitly disclose wherein the aspiration catheter has a size of 24 French or greater.
Laub teaches a system for removing material from the body of a patient, the system including a aspiration catheter (catheter 200, see Abstract; Figure 1A), wherein the aspiration catheter has a size of 20 French or greater (aspiration catheter has a French size of at least 20 Fr, see Paragraph [0028]).
Modified Fisher and Laub are analogous art because all teach a aspiration catheter for removing clot material.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the aspiration catheter of Modified Fisher and further include wherein the aspiration catheter has a size of 20 French or greater, as taught by Laub. Laub teaches the diameter of the aspiration catheter is beneficial to allow for aspiration of large thrombi and/or other solid materials from the patient (see Paragraph [0028]).
However, Modified Fisher and Laub do not explicitly disclose wherein the aspiration catheter has a size of 24 French or greater.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Modified Fisher to have a aspiration catheter of a size of 24 French or greater since it has been 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Modified Fisher would not operate differently with the claimed catheter size and since the catheter is intended aspirate clot material from a patient the device would function appropriately having the claimed diameter. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the size “can have be 20 French or greater” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0097]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC RASSAVONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am-5:30pm PT.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at (571) 272-7159. 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.
/ERIC RASSAVONG/ (5/30/2026)Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/JESSICA ARBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights