DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant's amendments filed 04/16/26.
The examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims.
Claims 2-22 are pending in this application.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2-22 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection set forth in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 2-4, 6, 8, 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0142858) in view of Broome (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0208224) and Pah (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0305604).
Regarding claim 2, Bates discloses a catheter (Figures 6A-6B; [0055]) comprising:
a shaft 21’ having a lumen ([0038]) and a distal portion (having balloon 27’ and stent 37’);
an embolic filter 50 ([0056]) mounted over the shaft, wherein the embolic filter comprises a distal end, a proximal end, a port (similar to mounting ring 40 in Figures 4A-4B) for the passage of the shaft therethrough (see port surrounding shaft 21’; Figures 6A-6B), a porous mesh material defining a collection chamber for captured emboli ([0056]), and a stent structure 51 providing support to the porous mesh; and
an interventional element (balloon 27’ and stent 37’; [0052]) coupled directly to the distal portion of the shaft (Figures 6A-6B).
However, Bates does not disclose a conical structure comprising a proximal end and a distal end, wherein the proximal end of the conical structure is slidably coupled to the shaft and the distal end of the conical structure is coupled to the embolic filter.
In Figure 1, Broome teaches a conical structure 30/24 comprising a proximal end (near 24) and a distal end (near 32), wherein the proximal end of the conical structure is slidably coupled to a shaft 14 ([0008]) and the distal end of the conical structure is coupled to a stent structure 36/26 ([0010]), wherein the conical structure has a collapsed configuration and a deployed configuration ([0010], [0011], [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Bates with a conical structure as claimed, as taught by Broome, in order to provide more support to the embolic filter and facilitate expansion and radial deployment and subsequent removal of the device in the lumen (Broome; [0010]).
Furthermore, Bates does not disclose wherein, in use in an aortic arch, the embolic filter expands to contact a vessel wall of the aortic arch, the embolic filter having a length from the distal end of the embolic filter to the proximal end of the embolic filter sufficient to cover all three branches connected to the aortic arch.
Pah teaches a filter catheter 1 (Figures 1-2) wherein, in used in an aortic arch, an embolic filter 6 expands to contact a vessel wall of the aortic arch ([0065]), the embolic filter having a length from the distal end of the embolic filter to the proximal end of the embolic filter sufficient to cover all three branches connected to the aortic arch (Figure 1; [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Bates such that the embolic filter has a length to cover all three branches connected to the aortic arch as claimed, as taught by Pah, in order to provide for blood flowing the arteries supplying the brain and the arms to minimize the risk of a stroke (Pah; [0115]).
Regarding claim 3, Bates as modified teaches the distal end of the conical structure is coupled to the embolic filter at the stent structure (at 32; Broome, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Bates as modified teaches the stent structure 51comprises a framework (Bates; Figures 6A-6B).
Regarding claim 6, Bates as modified teaches the stent structure comprises a shape memory material (Bates; [0057]).
Regarding claim 8, Bates as modified teaches the conical structure is integral with the stent structure (Broome, Figure 1; 30/24 is integral with (connected to) the stent structure 36/26).
Regarding claim 17, Bates discloses a system comprising:
a catheter comprising a shaft 21’ and a distal portion (having balloon 27’ and stent 37’);
an embolic filter 50 ([0056]) mounted over the shaft, wherein the embolic filter comprises a distal end, a proximal end, a port (similar to mounting ring 40 in Figures 4A-4B) for the passage of the shaft therethrough (see port surrounding shaft 21’; Figures 6A-6B), a porous mesh material defining a collection chamber for captured emboli ([0056]), and a stent structure 51, wherein the embolic filter has a collapsed configuration and a deployed configuration ([0057]);
an interventional element (balloon 27’ and stent 37’; [0052]) coupled directly to the distal portion of the shaft (Figures 6A-6B), and
a constraining sheath 24’ for delivering the catheter, the embolic filter, and the interventional element ([0057]).
However, Bates does not disclose a conical structure comprising a proximal end and a distal end, wherein the proximal end of the conical structure is slidably coupled to the shaft and the distal end of the conical structure is coupled to the stent structure, wherein the conical structure has a collapsed configuration and a deployed configuration.
In Figure 1, Broome teaches a conical structure 30/24 comprising a proximal end (near 24) and a distal end (near 32), wherein the proximal end of the conical structure is slidably coupled to a shaft 14 ([0008]) and the distal end of the conical structure is coupled to a stent structure 36/26 ([0010]), wherein the conical structure has a collapsed configuration and a deployed configuration ([0010], [0011], [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Bates with a conical structure as claimed, as taught by Broome, in order to provide more support to the embolic filter and facilitate expansion and radial deployment and subsequent removal of the device in the lumen (Broome; [0010]). It is noted that when the combination is made, the constraining sheath would also deliver the conical structure since it is coupled to the shaft.
Furthermore, Bates does not disclose wherein, in use in an aortic arch, the embolic filter expands to contact a vessel wall of the aortic arch, the embolic filter having a length from the distal end of the embolic filter to the proximal end of the embolic filter sufficient to cover all branch vessels connected to the aortic arch.
Pah teaches a filter catheter 1 (Figures 1-2) wherein, in used in an aortic arch, an embolic filter 6 expands to contact a vessel wall of the aortic arch ([0065]), the embolic filter having a length from the distal end of the embolic filter to the proximal end of the embolic filter sufficient to cover all branch vessels connected to the aortic arch (Figure 1; [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Bates such that the embolic filter has a length to cover all branch vessels connected to the aortic arch as claimed, as taught by Pah, in order to provide for blood flowing the arteries supplying the brain and the arms to minimize the risk of a stroke (Pah; [0115]).
Regarding claims 18-19, Bates as modified teaches retraction of the constraining sheath 24’ places the embolic filter and the conical structure in the deployed configuration (Bates; [0057]; also see [0017] of Broome).
Regarding claims 20-21, Bates as modified teaches distal advancement of the constraining sheath 24’ places the embolic filter and the conical structure in the collapsed configuration (Bates, [0058]; also see [0019] of Broome).
Regarding claim 22, Bates as modified teaches the claimed invention, as discussed above, except for further comprising a distal stop, wherein a spacing of the distal stop to the distal end of the embolic filter is selected to position the distal end of the embolic filter beyond the three branch vessels. However, Broome teaches in Figure 1 and [0017] distal stop 20 that prevents distal movement of the device therebeyond, wherein a spacing of the distal stop to a distal end of embolic filter 44 is selected to position the distal end of the embolic filter according to a target site. Furthermore, Pah teaches in Figure 1 and [0020] that the embolic filter is sized such that it can be positioned beyond the three branch vessels so that it fights tightly against the aorta in an arrangement that provides a larger filter surface where backpressure of blood is kept to a minimum ([0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Bates as modified with a distal stop as claimed, as taught by Broome and Pah, in order to effectively position the embolic filter which optimizes filtering of blood while providing for blood flowing the arteries supplying the brain and the arms to minimize the risk of a stroke (Pah; [0115]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0142858) in view of Broome (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0208224) and Pah (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0305604), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Khosravi (U.S. Patent No. 6,129,739).
Regarding claim 5, Bates as modified teaches the claimed invention, as discussed above, including the framework comprises a plurality of longitudinal struts and a hoop (struts 51 and hoop 53 in Bates Figures 6A-6B; also see struts 36 and hoop 26 in Broome, Figure 1), but not a plurality of hoops.
In Figure 6, Khosravi teaches an embolic filter with multiple hoops 53, 54 which help to prevent the filter from bunching during retrieval (col. 3, lines 42-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to provide the framework of Bates as modified with a plurality of hoops, as taught by Khosravi, to ensure that emboli are retained and prevent the filter from bunching (Id.).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0142858) in view of Broome (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0208224) and Pah (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0305604), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Fawzi (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0287668).
Regarding claim 7, Bates as modified teaches the claimed invention, as discussed above, except for the stent structure comprises a side port, wherein the side port is configured to allow for the passage of a second catheter.
Fawzi teaches a stent structure 60 with at least one closeable side port capable of introduction of a second catheter (see port through which 32 passes in Figure 6A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to further modify Bates as modified with a side port as claimed, as taught by Fawzi, to allow introduction of a tool that facilitates anchoring or maintaining a position of the filter (Fawzi; [0032])
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0142858) in view of Broome (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0208224) and Pah (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0305604), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ladd (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0006364).
Regarding claim 9, Bates as modified teaches the claimed invention, as discussed above, including the conical structure having a plurality of arms 30 (Broome; Figure 1); except for arms being curved.
In Figure 1, Ladd teaches a conical portion of a filter having curved arms 46 which shapes the outer surface of the conical section such that the arms may be pressed firmly against a wall of a vessel when the filter is deployed ([0029]) while not damaging the wall of the vessel ([0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Bates as modified such that the arms are curved, as taught by Ladd, in order to secure the filter against the wall of a vessel in an atraumatic manner (Id.).
Claims 10, 11, 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broome (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0208224) in view of Pah (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0305604).
Regarding claim 10, Broome discloses an embolic protection device comprising: a shaft 14 (Figure 1);
an embolic filter 44/36/26/22 mounted over the shaft, wherein the embolic filter comprises a distal end, a proximal end, a port 22 for the passage of the shaft therethrough ([0008]), a porous mesh material 44 ([0014]) defining a collection chamber for captured emboli ([0018]), and a stent structure 36/26, wherein the embolic filter has a collapsed configuration and a deployed configuration; and
a conical structure 30/24 comprising a proximal end and a distal end, wherein the proximal end of the conical structure is slidably coupled to the shaft ([0008]) and the distal end of the conical structure is coupled to the stent structure ([0010]), wherein the conical structure has a collapsed configuration and a deployed configuration ([0010], [0011], [0019]).
However, Broome does not disclose wherein, in use in an aortic arch, the embolic filter expands to contact a vessel wall of the aortic arch, the embolic filter having a length from the distal end of the embolic filter to the proximal end of the embolic filter sufficient to cover all branch vessels connected to the aortic arch.
Pah teaches a filter catheter 1 (Figures 1-2) wherein, in used in an aortic arch, an embolic filter 6 expands to contact a vessel wall of the aortic arch ([0065]), the embolic filter having a length from the distal end of the embolic filter to the proximal end of the embolic filter sufficient to cover all branch vessels connected to the aortic arch (Figure 1; [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Broome such that the embolic filter has a length to cover all branch vessels connected to the aortic arch as claimed, as taught by Pah, in order to provide for blood flowing the arteries supplying the brain and the arms to minimize the risk of a stroke (Pah; [0115]).
Furthermore, Broome does not disclose a distal stop distal to the distal end of the embolic filter, wherein the distal stop limits distal movement of the embolic filter on the shaft and a spacing of the distal stop to the distal end of the embolic filter is selected to position the distal end of the embolic filter beyond the branch vessels.
However, Broome teaches in Figure 1 and [0017] a distal stop 20 distal to the distal end of the embolic filter 44, wherein the distal stop limits distal movement of the embolic filter on the shaft, wherein a spacing of the distal stop to a distal end of embolic filter 44 is selected to position the distal end of the embolic filter according to a target site. Furthermore, Pah teaches in Figure 1 and [0020] that the embolic filter is sized such that it can be positioned beyond the branch vessels so that it fights tightly against the aorta in an arrangement that provides a larger filter surface where backpressure of blood is kept to a minimum ([0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Bates as modified with a distal stop as claimed, as taught by Broome and Pah, in order to effectively position the embolic filter which optimizes filtering of blood while providing for blood flowing the arteries supplying the brain and the arms to minimize the risk of a stroke (Pah; [0115]).
Regarding claim 11, Broome as modified teaches wherein the stent structure 36/26 comprises a framework (Broome; Figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, Broome as modified teaches the claimed invention, as discussed above, except for the stent structure comprises a shape memory material. However, Broome teaches the conical structure struts 30 being made of a shape memory material ([0011]; Nitinol). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the stent structure to also comprise a shape memory material such as Nitinol since it is preferred for its ability to undergo substantially bending or flexing with relatively little residual strain (Id.).
Regarding claim 15, Broome as modified teaches the conical structure 30/24 (Broome; Figure 1) is integral with (connected to) the stent structure 36/26.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broome (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0208224) in view of Pah (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0305604), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Khosravi (U.S. Patent No. 6,129,739).
Regarding claim 12, Broome as modified teaches the claimed invention, as discussed above, including the framework comprises a plurality of longitudinal struts and a hoop (struts 36 and hoop 26 in Broome, Figure 1), but not a plurality of hoops.
In Figure 6, Khosravi teaches an embolic filter with multiple hoops 53, 54 which help to prevent the filter from bunching during retrieval (col. 3, lines 42-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to provide the framework of Broome as modified with a plurality of hoops, as taught by Khosravi, to ensure that emboli are retained and prevent the filter from bunching (Id.).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broome (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0208224) in view of Pah (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0305604),,a s applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Fawzi (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0287668).
Regarding claim 14, Broome as modified teaches the claimed invention, as discussed above, except for the stent structure comprises a side port, wherein the side port is configured to allow for the passage of a second catheter.
Fawzi teaches a stent structure 60 with at least one closeable side port capable of introduction of a second catheter (see port through which 32 passes in Figure 6A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to further modify Bates as modified with a side port as claimed, as taught by Fawzi, to allow introduction of a tool that facilitates anchoring or maintaining a position of the filter (Fawzi; [0032]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broome (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0208224) in view of Pah (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0305604), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ladd (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0006364).
Regarding claim 16, Broome as modified teaches the claimed invention, as discussed above, including the conical structure having a plurality of arms 30 (Broome; Figure 1); except for arms being curved.
In Figure 1, Ladd teaches a conical portion of a filter having curved arms 46 which shapes the outer surface of the conical section such that the arms may be pressed firmly against a wall of a vessel when the filter is deployed ([0029]) while not damaging the wall of the vessel ([0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Bates as modified such that the arms are curved, as taught by Ladd, in order to secure the filter against the wall of a vessel in an atraumatic manner (Id.).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, 15, 17-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,076,224 in view of Broome (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0208224) and Pah (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0305604). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is clear that elements in the claim are to be found in the patent claims, except for features that are merely obvious (as discussed above).
Broome teaches an embolic filter with a conical structure 30/24 comprising a proximal end and a distal end, wherein the proximal end of the conical structure is slidably coupled to the shaft ([0008]) and the distal end of the conical structure is coupled to the stent structure ([0010]), wherein the conical structure has a collapsed configuration and a deployed configuration ([0010], [0011], [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the patent claims with the above features, as taught by Broome, in order to provide more support to the embolic filter and facilitate expansion and radial deployment and subsequent removal of the device in the lumen (Broome; [0010]).
Pah teaches a filter catheter 1 (Figures 1-2) wherein, in used in an aortic arch, an embolic filter 6 expands to contact a vessel wall of the aortic arch ([0065]), the embolic filter having a length from the distal end of the embolic filter to the proximal end of the embolic filter sufficient to cover all three branch vessels connected to the aortic arch (Figure 1; [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the patent claims with the above features, as taught by Pah, in order to provide for blood flowing the arteries supplying the brain and the arms to minimize the risk of a stroke (Pah; [0115]).
Furthermore, Broome teaches in Figure 1 and [0017] a distal stop 20 distal to the distal end of the embolic filter 44, wherein the distal stop limits distal movement of the embolic filter on the shaft, wherein a spacing of the distal stop to a distal end of embolic filter 44 is selected to position the distal end of the embolic filter according to a target site. Pah teaches in Figure 1 and [0020] that the embolic filter is sized such that it can be positioned beyond the three branch vessels so that it fights tightly against the aorta in an arrangement that provides a larger filter surface where backpressure of blood is kept to a minimum ([0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify patent claims with a distal stop as claimed, as taught by Broome and Pah, in order to effectively position the embolic filter which optimizes filtering of blood while providing for blood flowing the arteries supplying the brain and the arms to minimize the risk of a stroke (Pah; [0115]).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,076,224 in view of Broome (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0208224) and Pah (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0305604), as applied to claims 4 and 11 above, and further in view of Khosravi (U.S. Patent No. 6,129,739). The patent claims and Broome, Pah teach the claimed invention, as discussed above, except for features that are merely obvious. In Figure 6, Khosravi teaches an embolic filter with multiple hoops 53, 54 which help to prevent the filter from bunching during retrieval (col. 3, lines 42-44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to provide the framework of Broome and the patent claims with a plurality of hoops, as taught by Khosravi, to ensure that emboli are retained and prevent the filter from bunching (Id.).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,076,224 in view of Broome (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0208224) and Pah (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0305604), as applied to claims 2 and 10 above, and further in view of Fawzi (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0287668). The patent claims and Broome, Pah teach the claimed invention, as discussed above, except for features that are merely obvious. Fawzi teaches a stent structure 60 with at least one closeable side port capable of introduction of a second catheter (see port through which 32 passes in Figure 6A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to further modify the patent claims and Broome with a side port as claimed, as taught by Fawzi, to allow introduction of a tool that facilitates anchoring or maintaining a position of the filter (Fawzi; [0032]).
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,076,224 in view of Broome (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0208224) and Pah (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0305604), as applied to claims 2 and 10 above, and further in view of Ladd (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0006364). The patent claims and Broome, Pah teach the claimed invention, as discussed above, except for features that are merely obvious. In Figure 1, Ladd teaches a conical portion of a filter having curved arms 46 which shapes the outer surface of the conical section such that the arms may be pressed firmly against a wall of a vessel when the filter is deployed ([0029]) while not damaging the wall of the vessel ([0012]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the patent claims and Broome such that the arms are curved, as taught by Ladd, in order to secure the filter against the wall of a vessel in an atraumatic manner (Id.).
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 DIANE D YABUT whose telephone number is (571)272-6831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
/DIANE D YABUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights