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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-9, drawn to an apparatus, classified in A61B18/1492.
II. Claims 10-13, drawn to an apparatus, classified in A61B18/00.
III. Claims 14-17, drawn to an apparatus, classified in A61B5/6858.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because Invention I does not require for a plurality of inflatable members each coupled to a respective spine of the plurality of spines. The subcombination has separate utility such as preventing the distal end of the plurality of spines from contacting tissue during treatment.
Inventions I and III are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because Invention I does not require a spiral inductor. The subcombination has separate utility such as sensing positions of the end effector during treatment using the spiral inductor.
Inventions II and III are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because Invention II does not require a spiral inductor. The subcombination has separate utility such as sensing positions of the end effector during treatment using the spiral inductor.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The disclosed inventions require a different field of search (e.g. searching in different classes/subclasses, electronic resources, or employing different search quarries); and/or the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to the other invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Korbin Blunck on 02/04/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-9. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 10-17 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a proximal surface of the first central region” should be –the proximal surface of the first central region—; as introduced in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a first loop member comprising a first pair of spines of the plurality of spines” and “a second loop member comprising a second pair of spines of the plurality of spines”; the relationship between the first pair of spines and the first loop member and the second pair of spines and the second loop member is unclear, it is unclear if the first loop member is formed of a first pair of the spines and the second loop member is formed of the second pair of spines, or if the first loop member is a loop that also comprises a first pair of spines and the second loop member is a loop that also comprises a second pair of spines (e.g. the loops are additional to the spines), which renders the claim indefinite. For examination purposes the examiner is considering the first and second loop members to be formed by a first pair of spines and a second pair of spines, respectfully. Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on independent claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “a plurality of loop members each comprising a central region such that the central regions of the plurality of loop members are stacked at a central spine intersection in an inner-to-outer order, and such that at least a portion of the central regions comprise one or more extensions configured to overlap another loop member of the plurality of loop members out of order from the inner-to-outer order”; it is unclear how the “plurality of loop members”, “central region”, and “one or more extensions”, of claim 3, are related to the “plurality of spines”, the “first loop member”, the “first central region”, the “second loop member”, the “second central region”, and the “at least of extension”, as introduced in claim 1; more specifically, it is unclear if the plurality of loop members, of claim 3, comprise the first loop member and the second loop member, as introduced in claim 1, or if the plurality of loop members are additional to the first loop member and the second loop member; for examination purposes the examiner is considering the plurality of loop members to comprise the first loop member and the second loop member.
Claim 4 recites “wherein central regions of loop members of the end effector are configured to interlock to maintain connection between the loop members approximate the distal end of the end effector”; it is unclear if the “central regions” and “loop members”, of claim 4, are the same as are different than the “first loop member”, “first central region”, “second loop member”, and “second central region”, as introduced in claim 1, which renders the claim indefinite; for examination purposes the examiner is considering the “central regions” to be –the first central region and the second central region— and the “loop members” to be –the first loop member and the second loop member—.
Claim 5 recites “loop members”; it is unclear if the “loop members”, of claim 5, are the same as or different than the “first loop member” and “second loop member”, as introduced in claim 1, which renders the claim indefinite; for examination purposes the examiner is considering “the loop members” to be –the first loop member and the second loop member—.
Claim 6 recites “loop members”; it is unclear if the “loop members”, of claim 6, are the same as or different than the “first loop member” and “second loop member”, as introduced in claim 1, which renders the claim indefinite; for examination purposes the examiner is considering “the loop members” to be –the first loop member and the second loop member—.
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 1 & 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kordis et al. (US 20120271140 A1), hereinafter “Kordis”, in view of Foster (US 5989266 A), hereinafter “Foster”.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of the 112(b) rejection above, Kordis discloses an end effector of a medical probe, the end effector comprising: a plurality of spines extending along a longitudinal axis and configured to expand away from the longitudinal axis to form a basket shape ([0103]; Figure 1—elements 12 & 14); a first loop member comprising a first pair of spines of the plurality of spines and a first central region disposed approximate a distal end of the end effector ([0103], [0112], [0113], [0120], & [0123]; Figures 1,& 18-20—elements 14 & 66; the basket may comprise 8 splines; the splines are in the form of loops (as shown in figures 18-20); the examiner is considering the first loop member being a first spline loop 14 defining a first spine pair (e.g. the two spine legs/medial portions 64 forming the first loop 14) and the first central region being the distal spline portion 66 of the first spline loop 14); a second loop member comprising a second pair of spines of the plurality of spines and a second central region disposed approximate the distal end of the end effector ([0103], [0112], [0113], [0120], & [0123]; Figures 1,& 18-20—elements 14 & 66; the basket may comprise 8 splines; the splines are in the form of loops (as shown in figures 18-20); the examiner is considering the second loop member being a second spline loop 14 defining a second spine pair (e.g. the two spine legs/medial portions 64 forming the second loop) and the second central region being the distal spline portion 66 of the second spline loop 14), the second central region comprising a portion disposed over a distal surface of the first central region ([0132]-[0137]; Figures 27A-27D—elements 14 & 66); and one or more electrodes coupled to each spine of the plurality of spines ([0103]; the spines 14 comprise electrodes (not shown)).
Kordis does not disclose at least one extension disposed under a proximal surface of the first central region.
Foster teaches an end effector ([Col. 5, lines 30-43]; Figure 1—element 12) comprising a first loop member comprising a first central region ([Col. 5, lines 58 – Col. 6, line 2] & [Col. 6, lines 29-39]; Figures 1-3—elements 24/26; the first central region being the central region of loop member 24/26 near restricting means 28) and a second loop member comprising a second central region comprising a portion disposed over a distal surface of the first central region ([Col. 5, lines 58 – Col. 6, line 2]; Figures 1-3—element 20; the second central region being the central region of loop member 20 near restricting means 28)and at least one extension disposed under a proximal surface of the first central region ([Col. 6, lines 40-59]; Figures 2-3—element 30; the at least one extension being the smaller loop 30 extending from the second loop member 20 that interlocks with the first central region of first loop member 24/26).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the coupling of the first loop member and second loop member, as disclosed by Kordis, to include the coupling of the first loop member and the second loop member wherein the second loop member comprises at least one extension disposed under a proximal surface of the first central region, as taught by Foster, as both references and the claimed invention are directed toward end effector basket assembled comprising loop members coupled at a distal central region. As disclosed by Kordis, the first loop member and the second loop member may be secured to one another by an extension/looped filament that is looped over and under the first and second loop members, this coupling secures the first and second loop members in a desired predetermined angular relationship and provides for an atraumatic tip ([0132]-[0137]). As disclosed by Foster, the first central region of the first loop member and the second central region of the second loop member can be interlocked via an extension/loop extending from the second central region around the first central region, this coupling restricts movement between the loop members and provides for an atraumatic tip ([Col. 5, line 58 – Col. 6, line 2] & [Col. 6, lines 40-59]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the coupling of the first loop member and second loop member, as disclosed by Kordis, to include the coupling of the first loop member and the second loop member wherein the second loop member comprises at least one extension disposed under a proximal surface of the first central region, as taught by Foster, as such a modification would provide for a known and suitable coupling mechanism between a first loop and second loop of a basket assembly that would produce the predictable result of providing for an atraumatic distal tip and restricting movement between the first and second loop members.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood in view of the 112(b) rejection above, Kordis in view of Foster disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Kordis further discloses a plurality of loop members each comprising a central region such that the central regions of the plurality of loop members are stacked at a central spine intersection in an inner-to-outer order ([0112], [0112], [0120], & [0132]-[0137]; Figures 1, 18-20, & 27A-27E—elements 14 & 66).
Kordis does not disclose at least a portion of the central regions comprise one or more extensions configured to overlap another loop member of the plurality of loop members out of order from the inner-to-outer order.
Foster further teaches a plurality of loop members each comprising a central region ([Col. 5, lines 58 – Col. 6, line 2] & [Col. 6, lines 29-39]; Figures 1-3—elements 20 & 24/26; the central regions being the central region of loop members 20 & 24/26 near restricting means 28), and at least a portion of the central regions comprise one or more extensions configured to overlap another loop member of the plurality of loop members out of order from the inner-to-outer order ([Col. 3, lines 40-54] & [Col. 6, lines 40-59]; Figures 2-3—element 30; the at least one extension being the loop 30 extending from the second loop member 20 that interlocks with the first central region of first loop member 24/26).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the coupling of the plurality of loop members, as disclosed by Kordis, to include at least a portion of the central regions comprise one or more extensions configured to overlap another loop member of the plurality of loop members out of order from the inner-to-outer order, as further taught by Foster, as both references and the claimed invention are directed toward end effector basket assembled comprising loop members coupled at a distal central region. As disclosed by Kordis, loop members may be secured to one another by an extension/looped filament that is looped over and under the loop members, this coupling secures the loop members in a desired predetermined angular relationship and provides for an atraumatic tip ([0132]-[0137]). As disclosed by Foster, the central regions of the loop members can be interlocked via an extension/loop extending from a central of a loop member and around a central region of an adjacent loop member, this coupling restricts movement between the loop members and provides for an atraumatic tip ([Col. 5, line 58 – Col. 6, line 2] & [Col. 6, lines 40-59]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the coupling of the plurality of loop members, as disclosed by Kordis, to include at least a portion of the central regions comprise one or more extensions configured to overlap another loop member of the plurality of loop members out of order from the inner-to-outer order, as further taught by Foster, as such a modification would provide for a known and suitable coupling mechanism between a plurality of loop members of a basket assembly that would produce the predictable result of providing for an atraumatic distal tip and restricting movement between the loop members.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood in view of the 112(b) rejection above, Kordis in view of Foster disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Kordis does not disclose wherein central regions of loop members of the end effector are configured to interlock to maintain connection between the loop members approximate the distal end of the end effector.
Foster further teaches wherein central regions of loop members of the end effector are configured to interlock to maintain connection between the loop members approximate the distal end of the end effector ([Col. 3, lines 40-54] & [Col. 6, lines 40-60]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the coupling of the plurality of loop members, as disclosed by Kordis, to include wherein central regions of loop members of the end effector are configured to interlock to maintain connection between the loop members approximate the distal end of the end effector, as further taught by Foster, as both references and the claimed invention are directed toward end effector basket assembled comprising loop members coupled at a distal central region. As disclosed by Kordis, loop members may be secured to one another by an extension/looped filament that is looped over and under the loop members, this coupling secures the loop members in a desired predetermined angular relationship and provides for an atraumatic tip ([0132]-[0137]). As disclosed by Foster, the central regions of the loop members can be interlocked via an extension/loop extending from a central of a loop member and around a central region of an adjacent loop member, this coupling restricts movement between the loop members and provides for an atraumatic tip ([Col. 5, line 58 – Col. 6, line 2] & [Col. 6, lines 40-59]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the coupling of the plurality of loop members, as disclosed by Kordis, to include wherein central regions of loop members of the end effector are configured to interlock to maintain connection between the loop members approximate the distal end of the end effector, as further taught by Foster, as such a modification would provide for a known and suitable coupling mechanism between a plurality of loop members of a basket assembly that would produce the predictable result of providing for an atraumatic distal tip and restricting movement between the loop members.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood in view of the 112(b) rejection above, Kordis in view of Foster disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Kordis further discloses wherein ends of each of the loop members are coupled to a shaft of the end effector ([0104]; Figure 5—elements 18 & 20).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood in view of the 112(b) rejection above, Kordis in view of Foster disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Kordis further discloses wherein each of the loop members are formed from a planar sheet ([0164]; all components (i.e. splines 14) are desirably thin flat, planar elements).
Claims 1 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kordis, in view of Nakao (US 5782840 A), hereinafter “Nakao”.
Regarding claims 1 & 7, as best understood in view of the 112(b) rejection above, Kordis discloses an end effector of a medical probe, the end effector comprising: a plurality of spines extending along a longitudinal axis and configured to expand away from the longitudinal axis to form a basket shape ([0103]; Figure 1—elements 12 & 14); a first loop member comprising a first pair of spines of the plurality of spines and a first central region disposed approximate a distal end of the end effector ([0103], [0112], [0113], [0120], & [0123]; Figures 1,& 18-20—elements 14 & 66; the basket may comprise 8 splines; the splines are in the form of loops (as shown in figures 18-20); the examiner is considering the first loop member being a first spline loop 14 defining a first spine pair (e.g. the two spine legs/medial portions 64 forming the first loop 14) and the first central region being the distal spline portion 66 of the first spline loop 14); a second loop member comprising a second pair of spines of the plurality of spines and a second central region disposed approximate the distal end of the end effector ([0103], [0112], [0113], [0120], & [0123]; Figures 1,& 18-20—elements 14 & 66; the basket may comprise 8 splines; the splines are in the form of loops (as shown in figures 18-20); the examiner is considering the second loop member being a second spline loop 14 defining a second spine pair (e.g. the two spine legs/medial portions 64 forming the second loop) and the second central region being the distal spline portion 66 of the second spline loop 14), the second central region comprising a portion disposed over a distal surface of the first central region ([0132]-[0137]; Figures 27A-27D—elements 14 & 66); and one or more electrodes coupled to each spine of the plurality of spines ([0103]; the spines 14 comprise electrodes (not shown)).
Kordis does not disclose at least one extension disposed under a proximal surface of the first central region (claim 1); wherein the first loop member further comprises a notch through which a portion of the second central region extends so that the notch engages an extension of the at least one extension of the second central region (claim 7).
Nakao teaches an end effector comprising a first loop member comprising a first central region ([Col. 5, lines 30-44]; Figure 3A—element 30; with the first central region being the distal end of first loop member 30) and a second loop member comprising a second central region ([Col. 5, lines 30-44]; Figure 3A—element 20; with the second central region being the distal end of second loop member 20 attached to the first central region) and at least one extension disposed under a proximal surface of the first central region (claim 1) )([Col. 6, lines 45-59]; Figure 6B—element 42); wherein the first loop member further comprises a notch through which a portion of the second central region extends so that the notch engages an extension of the at least one extension of the second central region (claim 7)([Col. 6, lines 45-59]; Figure 6B—elements 38 & 42).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the coupling of the first loop member and second loop member, as disclosed by Kordis, to include the coupling of the first loop member and the second loop member wherein the second loop member comprises at least one extension disposed under a proximal surface of the first central region and that engages a notch in the first loop member, as taught by Nakao, as both references and the claimed invention are directed toward end effector basket assembled comprising loop members coupled at a distal central region. As disclosed by Kordis, the first loop member and the second loop member may be secured to one another by an extension/looped filament that is looped over and under the first and second loop members, this coupling secures the first and second loop members in a desired predetermined angular relationship ([0132]-[0137]). As disclosed by Foster, the second loop member can be coupled to the first loop member via an extension/strand that is configured to be wrapped around a notch of the first loop member so as to secure the second loop member from movement relative to the first loop member ([Col. 6, lines 45-60]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the coupling of the first loop member and second loop member, as disclosed by Kordis, to include the coupling of the first loop member and the second loop member wherein the second loop member comprises at least one extension disposed under a proximal surface of the first central region and that engages a notch in the first loop member, as taught by Nakao, as such a modification would provide for a known and suitable coupling mechanism between a first loop and second loop of a basket assembly that would produce the predictable result of restricting movement between the first and second loop members.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 & 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Claim 2 recites “a third loop member comprising a third pair of spines of the plurality of spines and a third central region disposed approximate the distal end of the end effector, the third central region comprising a portion disposed over a distal surface of the second central region, at least one extension disposed under a proximal surface of the second central region, and at least one extension disposed under a proximal surface of the first central region”; The Kordis reference provides a teaching for a third loop member comprising a third pair of spines of the plurality of spines and a third central region disposed approximate the distal end of the end effector, the third central region comprising a portion disposed over a distal surface of the second central region ([0103], [0112], [0113], [0120], [0123], & [0132]-[0137]; Figures 1, 18-20, 27A-27D—elements 14 & 66; the basket may comprise 8 splines; the splines are in the form of loops (as shown in figures 18-20); the examiner is considering the third loop member being a third spline loop 14 defining a third spine pair (e.g. the two spine legs/medial portions 64 forming the first loop 14) and the third central region being the distal spline portion 66 of the third spline loop 14); However, Kordis does not provide a teaching for the third central region comprising at least one extension disposed under a proximal surface of the second central region, and at least one extension disposed under a proximal surface of the first central region. The Foster reference provides a teaching for the third central region comprising at least one extension disposed under a proximal surface of the second central region ([Col. 5, lines 30-43], [Col. 5, lines 58 – Col. 6, line 2] & [Col. 6, lines 29-59]; Figures 1-3—elements 30-32). The Gerard reference (US 20040122444 A1) provides a teaching for a loop member comprising at least one extension disposed under a proximal surface of another loop member ([0034]-[0036]; Figures 1-3—element 13); however, neither the Foster reference nor the Gerard reference provide a teaching for the third central region comprising at least one extension disposed under a proximal surface of the first central region. The examiner notes that no other references or combination of references have been found to disclose, fairly suggest, or make obvious, the limitations set forth in claim 2.
Claim 8 recites “an inflatable member coupled to a spine of the plurality of spines approximate the distal end of the end effector such that the inflatable member is configured to collapse for delivery through a sheath and is configured to inflate in a deployed configuration, and such that the inflatable member in the deployed configuration prevents a distal end of the basket shape of the plurality of spines from contacting tissue”. The Pomeranz reference (US 5800482 A) provides a teaching for a plurality of spines ([Col. 4, lines 20-35]; Figure 1—element 14; the examiner is considering the plurality of spines to be comprises of a first loop half and a second loop half of looped wire 14), an inflatable member coupled to a spine of the plurality of spines approximate the distal end of the end effector such that the inflatable member is configured to collapse for delivery through a sheath and is configured to inflate in a deployed configuration, and such that the inflatable member in the deployed configuration prevents a distal end of the basket shape of the plurality of spines from contacting tissue ([Col. 5, line 60 – Col. 6, line 10] & [Col. 15, lines 9-31]; Figure 1, 6C, & 16—elements 44 & 215; it is the examiners position that the inflatable member would be capable preventing the distal end portion of the spines 14 from contacting tissue as the balloon member 44/215 can be located at the distal end of the loop, as shown in Figure 6C); The Jenkins reference (US 20020068897 A1) provides a teaching for a plurality of spines ([0050] & [0055]; Figures 1, 2, & 9—elements 14, 16, & 62), an inflatable member coupled to a spine of the plurality of spines approximate the distal end of the end effector such that the inflatable member is configured to collapse for delivery through a sheath and is configured to inflate in a deployed configuration, and such that the inflatable member in the deployed configuration prevents a distal end of the basket shape of the plurality of spines from contacting tissue ([0050], [0051], [0055]; Figures 1, 2, & 9—element 20; it is the examiners position that the inflatable member 20 would be capable of preventing at least a portion of a distal end of the basket shape 62 (that is adjacent to the inflatable member) from contacting tissue); However, the Pomeranz reference and the Jenkins reference do not disclose the limitations of independent claim 1 “a plurality of spines extending along a longitudinal axis and configured to expand away from the longitudinal axis to form a basket shape; a first loop member comprising a first pair of spines of the plurality of spines and a first central region disposed approximate a distal end of the end effector; a second loop member comprising a second pair of spines of the plurality of spines and a second central region disposed approximate the distal end of the end effector, the second central region comprising a portion disposed over a distal surface of the first central region and at least one extension disposed under a proximal surface of the first central region; and one or more electrodes coupled to each spine of the plurality of spines”; the examiner notes that no other reference or combination of references have been found to disclose, fairly suggest, or make obvious each and every limitations set forth in dependent claim 8. Dependent claim 9 is also indicated as containing allowable subject matter for substantially the same rationale, as dependent claim 8.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-9 are rejected. Claims 2 & 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARINA D TEMPLETON whose telephone number is (571)272-7683. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am to 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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.
/M.D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794