DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Please correct the following:
A subcutaneous abrasion device comprising: a handle; an elongated shaft extending distally from the handle; and an abrasive surface disposed on a distal end portion of the elongated shaft, .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wen (US 20190247156 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wen discloses a subcutaneous abrasion device (Figs. 7-7A, paras. [0065]-[0067]) comprising: a handle 111; an elongated shaft 112 extending distally from the handle (Fig. 5); and an abrasive surface (i.e., at 13) disposed on a distal end portion of the elongated shaft (Fig. 5), wherein the abrasive surface has a width that is greater than a width of the elongated shaft (Fig. 5A), wherein the abrasive surface includes a projection (i.e., as shown in Fig. 5A, each of the plurality of projections off of 13) rigidly fixed to the elongated shaft (i.e., at least because base 12 if fixed as shown in Fig. 5 and 5A and disclosed in para. [0059]), wherein the projection includes an edge extending outwards from the elongated shaft (Fig. 5A), and wherein the edge is configured to subcutaneously abrade an inner surface of a dermis of a subject without substantially cutting or puncturing the dermis of the subject (para. [0059], the device is used to pull and comb fibrous tissue subcutaneously (see for example Abstract and para. [0012]-[0013]).
Regarding claim 2, Wen discloses the subcutaneous abrasion device of claim 1. Wen also discloses wherein the inner surface of the dermis includes a portion of a reticular layer of the dermis of the subject (para. [0066]).
Regarding claim 3, Wen discloses the subcutaneous abrasion device of claim 1. Wen also discloses wherein the abrasive surface includes one or more rasps (para. [0059], BRI of rasps include a toothed structure).
Regarding claim 4, Wen discloses the subcutaneous abrasion device of claim 1. Wen also discloses wherein the abrasive surface includes a head portion 12 that is wider than the elongated shaft (Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 9, Wen discloses the subcutaneous abrasion device of claim 1. Wen also discloses wherein at least the abrasive portion is configured to be inserted into an opening in the subject (paras. [0061]-[0062]; Figs 7-7A).
Regarding claim 16, Wen discloses the subcutaneous abrasion device of claim 1. Wen also discloses wherein the abrasive surface is in a fixed configuration on the distal end portion of the elongated shaft (Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 17, Wen discloses the subcutaneous abrasion device of claim 1. Wen also discloses wherein the elongated shaft and abrasive surface are configured to be inserted through an opening formed in a skin of the subject (paras. [0061]-[0062]; Figs. 7-7A).
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen in view of Yang et al. (US 2019/0336727 A1).
Regarding claims 5-8, Wen discloses the subcutaneous abrasion device of claim 1. Wen doesn’t directly disclose a deployable head that deploys from a first undeployed configuration to a second deployed configuration, wherein the deployable head is selectively deployable within a subject, wherein the elongated shaft is configured to have an adjustable length, and wherein the elongated shaft is a telescoping elongated shaft.
In the same field of endeavor, namely neurovascular catheter having atraumatic tip, Yang discloses a similar device to Wen including a telescoping catheter including a deployable head (i.e., at least since the head can be telescoped as disclosed in para. [0075]) that deploys from a first undeployed configuration to a second deployed configuration, wherein the deployable head is selectively deployable within a subject (paras. [0090]-[0091]), a catheter having an adjustable, telescoping structure (para. [0075]).
Thus, adding the telescoping aspect of Yang to the shaft of Wen would produce a device that accomplishes the above limitations. As such, 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 device of Wen such that shaft of Wen is telescoping for purposes of use in various anatomies (paras. [0075], [0217]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 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.
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 RACHAEL LYNN GEIGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 5712724695. 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.
/RACHAEL L GEIGER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/BROOKE LABRANCHE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights