DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
2. This communication is in response to the communication filed 6/12/2024. Claims 4, 13-16, 19, 24, and 32-113 are cancelled. Claims 1, 5-11, 17-18, 20-23, and 25-31 are currently amended. Claims 1-3, 5-12, 17-18, 20-23 and 25-31 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
3.1. Claims 1-3, 5-12, 17-18, 20-23 and 25-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because while the claims (1) are to a statutory category (i.e., process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, the claims (2A1) recite an abstract idea (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon); (2A2) do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and (2B) are not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In regards to (1), the claims are to a statutory category (i.e., statutory categories including a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). In particular, independent claim 1 and the dependent claims are directed, in part, to methods and systems analyze automate correction of actions and decision support and automation during endovascular procedures.
In regards to (2A1), the claims, as a whole, recite and are directed to an abstract idea because the claims include one or more limitations that correspond to an abstract idea including mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity which encompasses both certain activity of a single person, certain activity that involves multiple people, and certain activity between a person and a computer. For example, independent claim 1, as a whole, are directed to analyzing a user’s endovascular device actions during an invasive procedure to provide the user an evaluation; and more specifically, to analyzing actions of a user of an endovascular device during an invasive procedure by receiving user action data, generating data related to the actions, analyzing the data, determining a relation between status of actions to provide an evaluation of the user, receiving sensor readings, analyzing the sensor readings to determine an outcome of an action, etc. which are human activities and/or interactions and therefore, certain methods of organizing human activity which encompasses both certain activity of a single person, certain activity that involves multiple people, and certain activity between a person and a computer. The dependent claims include all of the limitations of their respective independent claims and thus are directed to the same abstract idea identified for the independent claims but further describe the elements and/or recite field of use limitations.
Furthermore, assuming arguendo, the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activities, the claims, nevertheless, are directed to an abstract idea because the claims, except for certain limitations (* identified below in bold), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, can be reasonably and practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper using observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion. That is, other than reciting the certain additional elements, nothing in the claims precludes the limitations from being practically performed in the mind and/or with pen and paper.
CLAIM 1:
A non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to analyze actions of a user of an endovascular device during an invasive procedure, the operations comprising:
receiving indications of a plurality of actions of a user for controlling an endovascular device during an invasive procedure using a control device of the endovascular device;
receiving an indication of a preceding status for each action of the plurality of actions;
generating data related to the plurality of actions of the user, the data including a type of action and the preceding status for each action;
analyzing the data to determine a relation between the preceding status for each action and the plurality of actions;
using the determined relation between the preceding status for each action and the plurality of actions to provide an evaluation of the user;
receiving a sensor reading from a sensor, the sensor reading being captured after a particular action of the plurality of actions, wherein the sensor is mechanically connected to the endovascular device to allow the sensor to sense a state of the endovascular device; and
analyzing the sensor reading to determine an outcome of the particular action.
CLAIM 2:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, the operations further comprising:
generating data related to the plurality of actions of the user, the data including an outcome for each of the plurality of actions;
analyzing the data to determine a relation among the preceding status for each action, the plurality of actions, and the outcomes; and
using the determined relation among the preceding status for each action, the plurality of actions, and the outcomes to provide the evaluation of the user.
CLAIM 3:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 2, the operations further comprising: receiving a medical image captured after a particular action of the plurality of actions; and
analyzing the medical image to determine an outcome of the particular action.
CLAIM 5:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the outcome comprises a modification to one or more of a physical state of a patient and a modification to a state of the endovascular device.
CLAIM 6:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the outcome occurs 1 second to 2 minutes after the action.
CLAIM 7:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the outcome has an effect on a prognosis.
CLAIM 8:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the data further comprises a magnitude for each action of the plurality of actions, and wherein the relation is further based on the magnitudes of the plurality of actions.
CLAIM 9:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the data further comprises for each action of the plurality of actions a setting of the control device associated with the action, and wherein the relation is based on the settings of the plurality of actions.
CLAIM 10:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the data further comprises for each action of the plurality of actions a measure of deviation from a constant pulling speed, the relation being based on the measures of deviation for the plurality of actions.
CLAIM 11:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the provided evaluation of the user is configured to enable a device to analyze a prospective action of the user.
CLAIM 12:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the provided evaluation of the user is configured to cause a correction to the prospective action of the user.
CLAIM 17:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, the operations further comprising: receiving a medical image captured before a particular action of the plurality of actions; and analyzing the medical image to determine the preceding status of the particular action.
CLAIM 18:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the sensor reading is a first sensor reading, the operations further comprising:
receiving a second sensor reading captured from the sensor before a particular action of the plurality of actions, wherein the sensor reading is from a sensor that is connected to the endovascular device; and
analyzing the second sensor reading to determine the preceding status of the particular action.
CLAIM 20:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the preceding status for each action comprises a degree of opening associated with the endovascular device.
CLAIM 21:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the preceding status for each action comprises a position of the endovascular device.
CLAIM 22:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the preceding status for each action comprises at least one of a type of a clot, a location of a clot, or a size of a clot.
CLAIM 23:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the preceding status for each action comprises one or more of a size of a body structure at a site of treatment and a location of the site of treatment.
CLAIM 25:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1 any, wherein the plurality of actions include an action configured to cause a distal portion of the endovascular device to bend.
CLAIM 26:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1 any, wherein the plurality of actions include an action configured to cause a distal portion of the endovascular device to expand or contract.
CLAIM 27:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1 any, wherein the plurality of actions include an action configured to cause a detachment of an intraluminal device in a body structure of a patient.
CLAIM 28:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1 any, wherein the plurality of actions include an action configured to cause a movement of the endovascular device.
CLAIM 29:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the plurality of actions include an action configured to cause at least one of an electric current to flow between two electrodes positioned within a body structure or a difference of electrical potential between two electrodes positioned within a body structure.
CLAIM 30:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the plurality of actions include an action configured to cause a portion of the endovascular device to heat up.
CLAIM 31:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the plurality of actions include an action configured to cause a detachment of a stent in a body structure of a patient.
* The limitations that are in bold are considered “additional elements” that are further analyzed below in subsequent steps of the 101 analysis. The limitations that are not in bold are abstract and/or can be reasonably and practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen paper.
In regards to (2A2), the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements in the claims (i.e., * identified above in bold) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea; merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; and/or simply append technologies and functions, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea (i.e., the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer).
Here, the additional elements (e.g., computer readable medium, processor, control device, endovascular device, sensor, etc.) are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer technologies. Moreover, the claims recite “cause the at least one processor”, etc. devoid of any meaningful technological improvement details and thus, further evidence the additional elements are merely being used to leverage generic technologies to automate what otherwise could be done manually. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Furthermore, the additional elements do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field—the additional elements merely recite general purpose computer technology; the additional elements do not recite applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition—there is no actual administration of a particular treatment; the additional elements do not recite applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine—the additional elements merely recite general purpose computer technology; the additional elements do not recite limitations effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing—the additional elements do not recite transformation such as a rubber mold process; the additional elements do not recite applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment—the additional elements merely leverage general purpose computer technology to link the abstract idea to a technological environment.
In regards to (2B), the claims, individually, as a whole and in combination with one another, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of (A) a generic computer structure(s) that serves to perform computer functions that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., computers); and/or (B) functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Here, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer technologies. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer technologies cannot provide an inventive concept.
Moreover, paragraphs [0031] and [0051] of applicant's specification (US 2024/0420833) recites that “[t]he terms “computer,” “processor,” “controller,” “processing unit,” “computing unit,” and “processing module” should be expansively construed to cover any kind of electronic device, component or unit with data processing capabilities, including, by way of non-limiting example, a personal computer, a wearable computer, smart glasses, a tablet, a smartphone, a server, a computing system, a cloud computing platform, a communication device, a processor (for example, digital signal processor (DSP), an image signal processor (ISR), a microcontroller, a field programmable gate array (FPGA), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a central processing unit (CPA), a graphics processing unit (GPU), a visual processing unit (VPU), and so on), possibly with embedded memory, a single core processor, a multi core processor, a core within a processor, any other electronic computing device, or any combination of the above” which are well-known general purpose or generic-type computers and/or technologies. The use of generic computer components recited at a high level of generality to process information through an unspecified processor/computer does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Furthermore, the additional elements are merely well-known general purpose computers, components and/or technologies that receive, transmit, store, display, generate and otherwise process information which are akin to functions that courts consider well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry, such as, performing repetitive calculations; receiving or transmitting data over a network; electronic recordkeeping; retrieving and storing information in memory; and sorting information (See, for example, MPEP § 2106).
Therefore, the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
4.1. Claims 1-3, 5-12, 17-18, 20-21, 23, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al. (US 2020/0268457), in view of Hendrick et al. (US 2014/0275982).
CLAIM 1
Wolf teaches non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to analyze actions of a user of an endovascular device during an invasive procedure, the operations comprising (Wolf: abstract):
receiving indications of a plurality of actions of a user for controlling a endovascular device during an invasive procedure using a control device of the endovascular device (Wolf: abstract; ¶¶ [0086] “camera 115 may be configured to track a surgical instrument (also referred to as a surgical tool) within location 127, an anatomical structure, a hand of surgeon”, [0115], [0202] “catheters”, [0267] “analyzing frames of the surgical footage to identify in a second set of frames a medical tool, the anatomical structure, and an interaction between the medical tool and the anatomical structure…medical tool may include…endoscopes”, [0307], [0338]; FIGS. 1-36);
receiving an indication of a preceding status for each action of the plurality of actions (Wolf: abstract; ¶¶ [0129] “the decision making junction of the surgical procedure is associated with a first prior event in the surgical procedure, and the similar past decision making junctions are selected from past surgical procedures”, [0162], [0561]; FIGS. 1-36);
generating data related to the plurality of actions of the user, the data including a type of action and the preceding status for each action (Wolf: abstract; ¶¶ [0338] “surgeon may produce a visual/audio signal (e.g., a hand gesture, a body gesture, a visual signal”; FIGS. 1-36);
analyzing the data to determine a relation between the preceding status for each action and the plurality of actions (Wolf: abstract; ¶¶ [0219], [0162], [0581] “recommendation may be based on a surgical event that occurred at least a specified number of minutes before a decision making junction. In some embodiments, a surgical event may include a past action performed by a surgeon prior to a decision making junction”; FIGS. 1-36);
using the determined relation between the preceding status for each action and the plurality of actions to provide an evaluation of the user (Wolf: abstract; ¶¶ [0017] “analyzing the visual data of the ongoing surgical procedure and the historical surgical data to determine an estimated time of completion of the ongoing surgical procedure”, [0019]-[0021] “post-operative report”, [0129], [0162], [0561]; FIGS. 1-36);
receiving a sensor reading from a sensor, the sensor reading being captured after a particular action of the plurality of actions, wherein the sensor sense a state (Wolf: abstract; ¶¶ [0017] “receiving from an image sensor positioned in a surgical operating room, visual data tracking an ongoing surgical procedure, accessing a data structure containing historical surgical data, and analyzing the visual data of the ongoing surgical procedure and the historical surgical data to determine an estimated time of completion”, [0301]; FIGS. 1-36); and
analyzing the sensor reading to determine an outcome of the particular action (Wolf: abstract; ¶¶ [0017] “receiving from an image sensor positioned in a surgical operating room, visual data tracking an ongoing surgical procedure, accessing a data structure containing historical surgical data, and analyzing the visual data of the ongoing surgical procedure and the historical surgical data to determine an estimated time of completion”; FIGS. 1-36).
Wolf does not appear to explicitly teach the following:
sensor is mechanically connected to the endovascular device to allow the sensor to sense.
Hendrick, however, teaches the following:
sensor is mechanically connected to the endovascular device to allow the sensor to sense (Hendrick: abstract; ¶¶ [0040]-[0045]; FIGS. 1-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the endovascular device including a sensor mechanically connected to the device to sense a state of the device, as taught by Hendrick, with the system and method for intraoperative surgical event summary, as taught by Wolf, with the motivation of monitoring and improving use of endovascular devices (Hendrick: ¶¶ [0001]-[0014]).
CLAIM 2
Wolf teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, the operations further comprising: generating data related to the plurality of actions of the user, the data including an outcome for each of the plurality of actions; analyzing the data to determine a relation among the preceding status for each action, the plurality of actions, and the outcomes; and using the determined relation among the preceding status for each action, the plurality of actions, and the outcomes to provide the evaluation of the user (Wolf: abstract; ¶¶[0128]-[0129], [0162], [0215], [0226], [0561]); FIGS. 1-36).
CLAIM 3
Wolf teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 2, the operations further comprising: receiving a medical image captured after a particular action of the plurality of actions; and analyzing the medical image to determine an outcome of the particular action (Wolf: abstract; ¶¶ [0022], [0215], [0228], [0230], [0301]; FIGS. 1-36).
CLAIM 5
Wolf teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the outcome comprises a modification to one or more of a physical state of a patient (Wolf: abstract; ¶¶[0128]-[0129], [0162], [0215], [0226]-[0229], [0561]-[0567]); FIGS. 1-36).
Wolf may not teach the following: and a modification to a state of the endovascular device.
Hendrick, teaches and a modification to a state of the endovascular device (Hendrick: abstract; ¶¶ [0013], [0040]-[0045]; FIGS. 1-8).
The motivation to include the teachings of Hendrick with the teachings of Wolf is the same as that of claim 1 above and is incorporated herein.
CLAIM 6
Wolf teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the outcome occurs 1 second to 2 minutes after the action (Wolf: abstract; ¶¶ [0338], [0503]; FIGS. 1-36).
CLAIM 7
Wolf teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the outcome has an effect on a prognosis (Wolf: abstract; ¶¶[0128]-[0129], [0162], [0215], [0226]-[0229], [0561]-[0567]); FIGS. 1-36).
CLAIM 8
Wolf teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the data further comprises a magnitude for each action of the plurality of actions, and wherein the relation is further based on the magnitudes of the plurality of actions (Wolf: abstract; ¶¶ [0584], [0601]-[0603]; FIGS. 1-36).
CLAIM 9
Wolf teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the data further comprises for each action of the plurality of actions a setting of the control device associated with the action, and wherein the relation is based on the settings of the plurality of actions (Wolf: abstract; ¶¶ [0069], [0089]; FIGS. 1-36).
CLAIM 10
Wolf teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the data further comprises for each action of the plurality of actions a measure of deviation from a constant pulling speed, the relation being based on the measures of deviation for the plurality of actions (Wolf: ¶¶ [0020], [0334], [0498]; FIGS> 1-36).
CLAIM 11
Wolf teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the provided evaluation of the user is configured to enable a device to analyze a prospective action of the user (Wolf: abstract; ¶¶ [0021], [0536]; FIGS. 1-36).
CLAIM 12
Wolf teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the provided evaluation of the user is configured to cause a correction to the prospective action of the user (Wolf: abstract; ¶¶ [0558]; FIGS. 1-36).
CLAIM 17
Wolf teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, the operations further comprising: receiving a medical image captured before a particular action of the plurality of actions; and analyzing the medical image to determine the preceding status of the particular action (Wolf: abstract; ¶¶ [0023], [0082]; FIGS. 1-36).
CLAIM 18
Wolf teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the sensor reading is a first sensor reading, the operations further comprising: receiving a second sensor reading captured from the sensor before a particular action of the plurality of actions, wherein the sensor reading is from a sensor that is connected device; and analyzing the second sensor reading to determine the preceding status of the particular action (Wolf: abstract; ¶¶ [0015]-[0016]; FIGS. 1-36).
Wolf, does not appear to explicitly teach a sensor that is connected to the endovascular device.
Hendrick, however, teaches a sensor that is connected to the endovascular device (Hendrick: abstract; ¶¶ [0040]-[0045]; FIGS. 1-8).
The motivation to include the teachings of Hendrick with the teachings of Wolf is the same as that of claim 1 above and is incorporated herein.
CLAIM 20
Wolf does not appear to explicitly teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the preceding status for each action comprises a degree of opening associated with the endovascular device.
Hendrick, however, teaches wherein the preceding status for each action comprises a degree of opening associated with the endovascular device (Hendrick: abstract; ¶¶ [0013], [0040]-[0045], [0055]-[0056]; FIGS. 1-8).
The motivation to include the teachings of Hendrick with the teachings of Wolf is the same as that of claim 1 above and is incorporated herein.
CLAIM 21
Wolf does not appear to explicitly teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the preceding status for each action comprises a position of the endovascular device.
Hendrick, however, teaches wherein the preceding status for each action comprises a position of the endovascular device (Hendrick: abstract; ¶¶ [0013], [0040]-[0045], [0055]-[0056]; FIGS. 1-8).
The motivation to include the teachings of Hendrick with the teachings of Wolf is the same as that of claim 1 above and is incorporated herein.
CLAIM 23
Wolf teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the preceding status for each action comprises one or more of a size of a body structure at a site of treatment and a location of the site of treatment (Wolf: abstract; ¶¶ [0091]-[0092], [0130]; FIGS. 1-36).
CLAIM 26
Wolf does not appear to explicitly teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1 any, wherein the plurality of actions include an action configured to cause a distal portion of the endovascular device to expand or contract.
Hendrick, however, teaches wherein the plurality of actions include an action configured to cause a distal portion of the endovascular device to expand or contract (Hendrick: abstract; ¶¶ [0002]-[0003], [0013], [0055]; FIGS. 1-8).
The motivation to include the teachings of Hendrick with the teachings of Wolf is the same as that of claim 1 above and is incorporated herein.
CLAIM 28
Wolf does not appear to explicitly teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1 any, wherein the plurality of actions include an action configured to cause a movement of the endovascular device.
Hendrick, however, teaches wherein the plurality of actions include an action configured to cause a movement of the endovascular device (Hendrick: abstract; ¶¶ [0002]-[0003], [0013], [0055]; FIGS. 1-8).
The motivation to include the teachings of Hendrick with the teachings of Wolf is the same as that of claim 1 above and is incorporated herein.
4.2. Claims 22, 27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al. (US 2020/0268457), in view of Hendrick et al. (US 2014/0275982), and further in view of Lang et al. (2021/0137634).
CLAIM 22
Wolf does not appear to explicitly teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the preceding status for each action comprises at least one of a type of a clot, a location of a clot, or a size of a clot.
Lang, however, teaches wherein the preceding status for each action comprises at least one of a type of a clot, a location of a clot, or a size of a clot (Lang: abstract; ¶¶ [0344] “location, orientation, and/or alignment can be at an offset to a normal, damaged and/or diseased vessel or vascular structure”, [0843] “stents including predetermined placement or position, location, rotation, orientation, alignment, for example in relationship to an area of stenosis, an area of vascular occlusion, a thrombus, a clot”; FIGS. 1-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the method and system for performing vascular clot removal procedures, as taught by Lang, with the endovascular device including a sensor mechanically connected to the device to sense a state of the device, as taught by Hendrick, with the system and method for intraoperative surgical event summary, as taught by Wolf, with the motivation of facilitating surgical procedures (Lang: ¶¶ [0001]-[0040]).
CLAIM 27
Wolf does not appear to explicitly teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1 any, wherein the plurality of actions include an action configured to cause a detachment of an intraluminal device in a body structure of a patient.
Lang, however, teaches wherein the plurality of actions include an action configured to cause a detachment of an intraluminal device in a body structure of a patient (Lang: abstract; ¶¶ [0068]; FIGS. 1-20).
The motivation to include the teachings of Lang with the teachings of Wolf and Hendrick is the same as that of claim 22 above and is incorporated herein.
CLAIM 31
Wolf does not appear to explicitly teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the plurality of actions include an action configured to cause a detachment of a stent in a body structure of a patient.
Lang, however, teaches wherein the plurality of actions include an action configured to cause a detachment of a stent in a body structure of a patient (Lang: abstract; ¶¶ [0068]; FIGS. 1-20).
The motivation to include the teachings of Lang with the teachings of Wolf and Hendrick is the same as that of claim 22 above and is incorporated herein.
4.2. Claims 25, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al. (US 2020/0268457), in view of Hendrick et al. (US 2014/0275982), and further in view of Mauch et al. (8956352).
CLAIM 25
Wolf does not appear to explicitly teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1 any, wherein the plurality of actions include an action configured to cause a distal portion of the endovascular device to bend.
Mauch, however, teaches wherein the plurality of actions include an action configured to cause a distal portion of the endovascular device to bend (Mauch: abstract; col. 11, lns. 29-34; FIGS. 1-32B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the method and system for intravascular surgery using a catheter device with a bendable end, as taught by Mauch, with the endovascular device including a sensor mechanically connected to the device to sense a state of the device, as taught by Hendrick, with the system and method for intraoperative surgical event summary, as taught by Wolf, with the motivation of facilitating intravascular catheter surgical procedures (Mauch: abstract; col. 6, lns. 15-47).
CLAIM 29
Wolf does not appear to explicitly teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the plurality of actions include an action configured to cause at least one of an electric current to flow between two electrodes positioned within a body structure or a difference of electrical potential between two electrodes positioned within a body structure.
Mauch, however, teaches wherein the plurality of actions include an action configured to cause at least one of an electric current to flow between two electrodes positioned within a body structure or a difference of electrical potential between two electrodes positioned within a body structure (Mauch: abstract; col. 8, lns. 10-23; FIGS. 1-32B).
The motivation to include the teachings of Mauch with the teachings of Wolf and Hendrick is the same as that of claim 25 above and is incorporated herein.
CLAIM 30
Wolf does not appear to explicitly teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the plurality of actions include an action configured to cause a portion of the endovascular device to heat up.
Mauch, however, teaches wherein the plurality of actions include an action configured to cause a portion of the endovascular device to heat up (Mauch: abstract; col. 19, lns. 24-39; FIGS. 1-32B).
The motivation to include the teachings of Mauch with the teachings of Wolf and Hendrick is the same as that of claim 25 above and is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tomaszewski whose telephone number is (313)446-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30 am - 2:30 pm.
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, Peter H Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/MICHAEL TOMASZEWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681