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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The instant Application is a 371 of PCT/CN2023/097174, which claims priority to CN202211439559.5, filed 17 November 2022.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10 August 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s), as amended, over Stevens, Jamous, and Xiao have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Eidenschink. See rejections below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the truncated cone or paraboloid structure of the connecting portion of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. FIG 6 illustrates a cylindrical connecting portion, not the shape as set forth in the claims.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 7, 9, , are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,857,046 to Stevens et al in view of US 5,030,201 to Palestrant.
PNG
media_image1.png
160
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the specification and figures, Stevens discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed by Applicant. With regard to claims 1-3, 7, 9, Stevens discloses a cutting instrument comprising a guide wire body 14/22/124, configured to be arranged in a suction catheter 18, a thrombus cutting member 16/116 connected to the wire body and within the suction catheter, wherein the cutting member is driven by the guide wire body to cut a thrombus, and the cutting portion has recesses (see FIGS 1A, 2, 3, 5, 6, column 2, lines 28-44, 33, column 3, line 362 to column 5, line 49). Stevens does not disclose the profile of the cutting member as claimed by Applicant. However, Palestrant discloses an apparatus for atherectomy comprising a driveshaft or guidewire 32/snag45 arranged in a suction catheter 22, and a spiral cutting member 32/34/36/38 with protrusions 48 and comprising a frustoconical tip 38’’ increasing in circumference from the distal end to the proximal end, and a connecting portion 38’ with a frustoconical shape that increases from the proximal end to the distal portion (see at least FIGS 1, 2, 9, 10, accompanying text, col 10, ln 25-39).
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at1396. Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
With regard to claim 8, Stevens discloses a rotary knob or drive coupling 20 to drive the guidewire body to rotate (see column 4, line 60 to column 5, line 5).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,857,046 to Stevens et al in view of US 5,030,201 to Palestrant, further in view of CN 211705585 U to Xiao et al.
With regard to claim 10, Stevens discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed by Applicant (see rejections above). Stevens further discloses a negative pressure source at handle 72 connected to suction catheter 18, a connector 40, and a cutting guide wire 22/16 within suction catheter 18. Stevens does not disclose a plurality of lateral holes formed in the wall of the suction catheter. However, Xiao discloses an aspiration catheter with a guidewire and suction holes on the side part of the catheter body to enable practical and effective suction of a thrombus from a blood vessel wall (see ¶0015 of translation provided by Applicant). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the aspiration catheter with guidewire as disclosed by Stevens with lateral holes as disclosed by Xiao, in order to provide practical and effective suction, as taught by Xiao.
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 LESLIE R DEAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am to 5:30pm.
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.
/LESLIE R DEAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 1 September 2026
Prosecution Insights