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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 03/25/26 has been entered. Claims 37-38 and 46 have been amended and claims 28-36, 39, 44, and 47 have been cancelled. New claims 37-38, 40-43, and 45-46 are addressed in the following office action.
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.
Claims 37, 42-43, and 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berrada et al. (US 2005/0283186), cited in previous office action, in view of Stinis (US 2012/0197277).
Regarding claim 37, an invention relating to blood vessel obstruction removal device, Berrada discloses a method of treating clot material within a blood vessel in a vasculature of a patient (Figs. 16-19), the method comprising: advancing a catheter [i.e. delivery sheath] at least partially through the vasculature of the patient, at least partially into the blood vessel, and at least partially through the clot material (Par. 0134); deploying a clot treatment device (360) from the catheter (Par. 0011 & 0130); expanding a generally tubular stent structure (364) of the clot treatment device, wherein the stent structure has a proximal end portion that is open and a distal end portion that is open (Par. 0138); expanding a braid structure (70) of the clot treatment device, wherein the braid structure comprises a plurality of filaments braided together (Par. 0063), wherein a proximal end portion of the braid structure is attached to the distal end portion of the stent structure (Par. 0138), and wherein a distal end portion (78) of the braid structure is closed (Par. 0069 & 0134); and retracting the clot treatment device through the clot material to (a) separate the clot material from the blood vessel with the stent structure and (b) capture the separated clot material at least partially within the braid structure (Par. 0139-0141). However, Berrada fails to disclose wherein the stent structure comprises a plurality of interconncected struts.
In the same field of endeavor, which is blood vessel obstruction removal devices, Stinis teaches (Fig. 2A) wherein a stent structure (222) comprises a plurality of interconncected struts [i.e. fingers that are polygonal and connected to one another by linear segments, and the dissection tip can include teeth, wedges] (Par. 0061).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Berrada to have the stent structure comprises a plurality of interconncected struts. Doing so would allow the stent to extend substantially parallel to the walls of a blood vessel such that the medical article can be moved longitudinally relative to the blood vessel (Par. 0061), as taught by Stinis.
Regarding claim 42, Berrada, as modified by Stinis, discloses the method of claim 37. Berrada further discloses wherein the blood vessel is a peripheral blood vessel (Par. 0002 & 0110).
Regarding claim 43, Berrada, as modified by Stinis, discloses the method of claim 42. Berrada further discloses wherein the clot material comprises a deep vein thrombosis (Par. 0002 & 0110).
Regarding claim 45, Berrada, as modified by Stinis, discloses the method of claim 37. Berrada further discloses wherein the proximal end portion of the braid structure is attached around a periphery of the distal end portion of the stent structure such that the proximal end portion of the braid structure is open (Par. 0138).
Regarding claim 46, an invention relating to blood vessel obstruction removal device, Berrada discloses a method of treating clot material within a peripheral blood vessel in a vasculature of a patient (Figs. 16-19), the method comprising: advancing a catheter [i.e. delivery sheath] at least partially through the vasculature of the patient, at least partially into the peripheral blood vessel, and at least partially through the clot material (Par. 0134); deploying a clot treatment device (360) from the catheter (Fig. 16); expanding a generally tubular stent structure (364) of the clot treatment device, wherein the stent structure has a proximal end portion that is open and a distal end portion that is open (Par. 0138); expanding a braid structure (70) of the clot treatment device, wherein the braid structure comprises a plurality of filaments braided together (Par. 0063), wherein a proximal end portion of the braid structure is attached around a periphery of the distal end portion of the stent structure such that the proximal end portion of the braid structure opens to a lumen of the stent structure, and wherein a distal end portion (78) of the braid structure is closed (Par. 0138); and retracting the clot treatment device through the clot material to (a) separate the clot material from the blood vessel with the stent structure and (b) capture the separated clot material at least partially within the braid structure (Par. 0139-0141). However, Berrada fails to disclose wherein the stent structure comprises a plurality of interconncected struts.
In the same field of endeavor, which is blood vessel obstruction removal devices, Stinis teaches (Fig. 2A) wherein a stent structure (222) comprises a plurality of interconncected struts [i.e. fingers that are polygonal and connected to one another by linear segments, and the dissection tip can include teeth, wedges] (Par. 0061).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Berrada to have the stent structure comprises a plurality of interconncected struts. Doing so would allow the stent to extend substantially parallel to the walls of a blood vessel such that the medical article can be moved longitudinally relative to the blood vessel (Par. 0061), as taught by Stinis.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berrada et al. (US 2005/0283186), in view of Stinis (US 2012/0197277), as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Martin et al. (US 2009/0299393), cited in the previous office action.
Regarding claim 38, Berrada, in view of Stinis, discloses the method of claim 37. Berrada discloses (Fig. 18) wherein the method further comprises retracting the clot treatment device with the clot material captured within the braid structure into a capture device (366; Par. 0141). However, Berrada fails to disclose retracting the clot treatment device with the clot material captured within the braid structure into a funnel.
In the same field of endeavor, which is blood vessel obstruction removal devices, Martin teaches (Fig. 12B) retracting a clot treatment device (200) with the clot material captured within the braid structure into a funnel (286; Par. 0151).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Berrada to have the method step of retracting the clot treatment device with the clot material captured within the braid structure into a funnel. Doing so would prevent a physician has difficulty withdrawing the obstruction loaded device within a sheath, guide catheter or introducer (Par. 0151), as taught by Martin.
Claims 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berrada et al. (US 2005/0283186), in view of Stinis (US 2012/0197277), as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Cully et al. (US 2003/0187495), cited in previous office action.
Regarding claim 40, Berrada, as modified by Stinis, discloses the method of claim 37. Berrada fails to further discloses wherein deploying the clot treatment device from the catheter comprises retracting the catheter relative to the clot treatment device.
In the analogous art of filters, Cully teaches wherein deploying the clot treatment device from the catheter comprises retracting the catheter relative to the clot treatment device (Par. 0117).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Berrada to have the method step wherein deploying the clot treatment device from the catheter comprises retracting the catheter relative to the clot treatment device. Doing so would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (Par. 0117), as taught by Cully.
Regarding claim 41, Berrada, as modified by Stinis, discloses the method of claim 37. Berrada discloses wherein deploying the clot treatment device from the catheter comprises the clot treatment device positioned entirely distal to the clot material (Fig. 16). However, Berrada fails to disclose wherein deploying the clot treatment device from the catheter comprises retracting the catheter relative to the clot treatment device.
In the analogous art of filters, Cully teaches wherein deploying the clot treatment device from the catheter comprises retracting the catheter relative to the clot treatment device (Par. 0117).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Berrada, in view of Stinis, to have the method step wherein deploying the clot treatment device from the catheter comprises retracting the catheter relative to the clot treatment device. Doing so would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (Par. 0117), as taught by Cully.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 03/25/26, with respect to claims 37-38 and 46 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections and 35 USC § 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s remaining arguments, see pages 6-8, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 USC § 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of newly cited prior art.
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 Examiner Chima Igboko whose telephone number is (571)272-8422. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Jackie Ho, at (571) 272-4696. 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.
/C.U.I/ Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/ASHLEY L FISHBACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771 June 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights