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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 57, 58, and 62 objected to because of the following informality: the “or” between the final two options in each claim. “Or” is an incompatible term for a list that begins with “at least one of”, as it precludes the other option rather than allowing for both to be included within the full claim. The replacement of the “or” with an “and” would render this objection resolved. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations is/are: “input mechanism” and “device movement mechanism” in claim 24, and “input mechanism”, “device movement mechanism”, “endovascular device”, and “control device” in claim 50.
As for the examiner’s interpretation of “input mechanism”, the specification defines the term as the following:
A manual input mechanism (e.g., a button, keyboard, computer mouse, lever, joystick, foot switch or pedal, or touch screen), an audio input mechanism (e.g., a microphone device configured to recognize verbal commands), a graphical user interface, or any other interface for receiving input from a user specifying the first desired action of the endovascular device. In disclosed embodiments, the input from the user indicative of the first desired action may be obtained from a control handle operably connected to the at least one processor.
For the purpose of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this term will be either a physical feature that the user physically interacts with, a receiver for audio commands, or a graphical user interface.
As for the examiner’s interpretation of “device movement mechanism”, the specification defines the term as the following:
In disclosed embodiments, device movement mechanism 2412 may include at least one of a motor, an encoder, or a gear, which may be configured to move the at least one movable portion of endovascular device 1200.
For the purpose of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this term will be a motor, encoder, or gear.
As for the examiner’s interpretation of “endovascular device”, the specification defines the term as the following:
An endovascular device may refer to any device or instrument configured to be placed within or to operate inside a blood vessel or another body structure or organ within a human body for a medical purpose, for example to diagnose and/or treat a patient.
For the purpose of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this term will be the definition as stated above.
As for the examiner’s interpretation of “control device”, the specification defines the term in the following ways:
The control device may include an input mechanism configured to receive input from a user; a device movement mechanism configured to control at least one movable portion of the endovascular device, the movable portion of the endovascular device configured for placement within the body of the patient; and at least one processor.
The control device may include a control device body configured to be positioned outside the body of the patient; a device movement mechanism configured to control at least one adjustable portion of the endovascular device, the at least one adjustable portion configured for placement at the treatment site within the body of the patient; and at least one magnet operably connected to the device movement mechanism.
For the purpose of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this term will be a structure containing at least one of the 4 limitations as recited above by the specification.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112The 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for the use of the term “second data” without a “first data”. Claim 2 reads as a list of possible input modes, with two of the three possible modes being “first data” and “second data”. As they are separate items in the list and either one could be chosen, should the “second data” be chosen, there would not necessarily be a “first” data, leaving the claim indefinite as to what the first part of the limitation pertains to. If the list of possible input modes instead was “input from a user” and then “first data … and second data …”, this claim would become definite.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for a lack of antecedent basis. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the input from the user". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If claim 3 was dependent upon claim 2, where “input from the user” is first introduced, there would be proper antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 28 does not further limit claim 24 which it is dependent upon due to the mention of features of an “endovascular device” not positively recited within the original claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 24, 25, 27, 50, 51, 58, 59, 62, and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Merril et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0040737, hereinafter “Merril”). Regarding claim 1, Merril teaches A system for digital control of an endovascular device, the system comprising:
at least one processor (paragraph 23 “can include a microprocessor”) configured to: obtain an input (paragraph 23 “detected by an optical or other type of detector when the markings are moved past the sensor to determine the position of the tool”) indicative of a first desired action of an endovascular device within a body structure of a patient
determine at least one property of a first force based on the input (paragraph 30 the forces on the working channel tool 4 applied by the user are measured and used in force determination”)
based on the determined at least one property, cause a control device of the endovascular device to exert the first force on a first portion of the endovascular device (paragraph 22 ”indicating the current position or motion of the tool 4, and then control the actuator 12 to output that force”), the first portion of the endovascular device positioned outside the body of the patient, wherein exertion of the first force causes a second portion of the endovascular device to execute the first desired action within the body structure (paragraph 25 “actuator 12 can be used to move the tool 4 into and through the working channel, to a point just short of exiting the channel”).
Regarding claim 2, Merril teaches a control system wherein the input includes at least one of an input from a user performing a procedure with the endovascular device (paragraph 23 “detected by an optical or other type of detector when the markings are moved past the sensor to determine the position of the tool”); first data of at least one medical image captured prior to or during a procedure performed with the endovascular device; or second data derived from at least one sensor output (paragraph 23 “other types of sensors, besides the optical type of sensor described above, can also be used to sense the position and/or amount of motion of working channel tool 4”).
Regarding claim 3, Merril teaches a control system wherein the input from the user is obtained from at least one of a control handle operably connected to the at least one processor (paragraph 30 “translational force applied by the user to working channel tool 4 via handle 17 is sensed by force-torque sensor 19”), or a device including at least a second processor.
Regarding claim 24, Merril teaches a control device for controlling movement of an endovascular device, the control device being configured to be positioned outside a body of a patient, the control device comprising:
an input mechanism configured to receive input from a user (paragraph 23 “detected by an optical or other type of detector when the markings are moved past the sensor to determine the position of the tool”)
a device movement mechanism configured to control at least one movable portion of the endovascular device, the movable portion of the endovascular device configured for placement within the body of the patient (paragraph 23 “actuator 12 is an electronically-controlled device that modifies the force on the tool 4”)
at least one processor configured to: in response to a first input, actuate the device movement mechanism to move the at least one movable portion of the endovascular device, so that the endovascular device is moved into a first configuration (paragraph 25 “if the practitioner inserts a tool into the working channel, the actuator 12 can be used to move the tool 4 into and through the working channel, to a point just short of exiting the channel”)
Regarding claim 25, Merril teaches a control device wherein the at least one processor is configured to in response to a second input, actuate the device movement mechanism to move the at least one movable portion of the endovascular device, so that the endovascular device is moved into a second configuration that is different from the first configuration (paragraph 24 “control signals can be transmitted to actuator 12 to produce torque necessary to slow and then halt further motion of motion sensing and control wheel 18, thereby slowing and then halting further insertion of working channel tool 4”)
Regarding claim 27, Merril teaches a control device wherein at least one of the first input or the second input is a user input received via the input mechanism (paragraph 23 “used to sense the position and/or amount of motion of working channel tool 4 to determine insertion distance”).
Regarding claim 50, Merril teaches an endovascular treatment system, comprising:
an endovascular device configured for controllable movement at a treatment site within the body of a patient, the endovascular device including at least one movable portion (paragraph 23 actuator 12)
and a control device (paragraph 23 control unit 24) for controlling the endovascular device, the control device comprising: an input mechanism configured to receive input from a user (paragraph 23 “sensors”)
a device movement mechanism configured to control the at least one movable portion of the endovascular device; and at least one processor configured to: in response to a first input, actuate the device movement mechanism to move the at least one movable portion of the endovascular device, so that the endovascular device is moved into a first configuration at the treatment site (paragraph 25 “if the practitioner inserts a tool into the working channel, the actuator 12 can be used to move the tool 4 into and through the working channel, to a point just short of exiting the channel”)
Regarding claim 51, Merril teaches an endovascular treatment system, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: in response to a second input, actuate the device movement mechanism to move the at least one movable portion of the endovascular device, so that the endovascular device is moved into a second configuration at the treatment site, the second configuration being different from the first configuration (paragraph 24 “control signals can be transmitted to actuator 12 to produce torque necessary to slow and then halt further motion of motion sensing and control wheel 18, thereby slowing and then halting further insertion of working channel tool 4”).
Regarding claim 58, Merril teaches an endovascular treatment comprising at least one of a force meter (paragraph 30 “handle 17 can be disposed adjacent force-torque sensor 19”); a user interface device; or an image display device.
Regarding claim 59, Merril teaches an endovascular treatment wherein the at least one processor of the control device is configured to: obtain a force measurement signal from the force meter; and based on the force measurement signal, control a movement of the at least one movable portion of the endovascular device by the device movement mechanism (paragraph 30 “control unit 24 receives signals resulting from applied force measured by force-torque sensor 19 and in response produces control signals which are transmitted to actuator 12 to control the motion of wheel 18”).
Regarding claim 62, Merril teaches an endovascular treatment system wherein the device movement mechanism comprises:
at least one of a motor, an encoder, or a gear (paragraph 23 “motor”)
the at least one of a motor, an encoder, or a gear of the device movement mechanism is configured to move the at least one movable portion of the endovascular device based on at least one of:
a user input obtained via the input mechanism of the control device (paragraph 25 “actuator 12 can be used to move the tool 4 into and through the working channel, to a point just short of exiting the channel”)
a user input obtained via a user interface device operably connected to the control device; a force measurement signal obtained from a force meter (paragraph 30 “force-torque sensor”); or computer-executable instructions for treatment with the device, stored in a memory
Regarding claim 63, Merril teaches an endovascular treatment system wherein the device movement mechanism of the control device comprises at least one magnet, and wherein in response to a first actuation of the at least one magnet (paragraph 23 “magnetic particle brake”), the device movement mechanism is configured to cause movement (the activation of the magnetic particle brake slows/stops movement of the tool, release of the brake therefore causes movement of the tool due to the absence of resistance) of the at least one movable portion of the endovascular device, so that the endovascular device is moved into the first configuration.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 26, 28, 29, 54, 55, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merril in view of Sadaat et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0197347, hereinafter “Sadaat”). In regards to claim 26, Merrill teaches the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach a control device wherein the at least one processor is configured to actuate the device movement mechanism to do at least one of move a first movable portion and a second movable portion of the endovascular device in the same direction; move the first movable portion of the endovascular device in a first direction and move the second movable portion of the endovascular device in a second direction that is opposite the first direction; or move at least one movable portion of the endovascular device while another portion of the endovascular device remains stationary relative to the control device. Sadaat teaches a control device wherein the at least one processor is configured to actuate the device movement mechanism to do at least one of move a first movable portion and a second movable portion of the endovascular device in the same direction; move the first movable portion of the endovascular device in a first direction and move the second movable portion of the endovascular device in a second direction that is opposite the first direction; or move at least one movable portion of the endovascular device while another portion of the endovascular device remains stationary relative to the control device. As seen in paragraph 173 of Sadaat, the proximal and distal ends of the capture member are coupled to their own respective elongated members, and both members can be moved “axially relative to one another to expand and collapsed the capture structure”. The examiner interprets this as two movable members moving in either the same direction or two opposite directions. Paragraph 360 details the implementation of a processor to execute any of the processes detailed in the specification so a processor would control the motion outlined in paragraph 173. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control device of Merril with the two movable portions of Sadaat in order to incorporate control of a capture device within the device, creating functionality for more therapeutic operations.
Regarding Claim 28, Merril teaches the elements of claim 24, but fails to teach a control device wherein the endovascular device comprises an expandable mesh and a core wire fixed relative to a distal end of the expandable mesh, and wherein the control device is configured to actuate the core wire to cause expansion and/or contraction of the expandable mesh. Sadaat teaches a control device wherein the endovascular device comprises an expandable mesh and a core wire fixed relative to a distal end of the expandable mesh, and wherein the control device is configured to actuate the core wire to cause expansion and/or contraction of the expandable mesh. Paragraph 191 states “system 700 is configured such that a user can manipulate the tension in the deployment member 706 to increase or decrease a diameter and/or length of the capture structure 701”, and paragraph 173 states” the capture structure 100 can be expanded via one or more pull-wires”. Therefore, Sadaat teaches a control device where a user input moves a pull wire to expand/contract a capture structure, and paragraph 169 states “the shape of the capture structure 100 substantially follows the shape of the frame 102” and the frame is said to comprise a mesh structure. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control device of Merril with the core wire and expandable mesh of Sadaat in order to incorporate control of a capture device within the device, creating functionality for more therapeutic operations.
In regards to claim 29, Merril teaches the elements of claims 24 and 28, but fails to teach a control device wherein the at least one processor is configured to: in response to the first input, actuate the device movement mechanism to move the core wire of the endovascular device in a first direction, thereby causing the mesh to expand; and/or in response to a second input, actuate the device movement mechanism to move the core wire in a second direction that is opposite the first direction, thereby causing the endovascular mesh to contract. Sadaat teaches a control device wherein the at least one processor is configured to: in response to the first input, actuate the device movement mechanism to move the core wire of the endovascular device in a first direction, thereby causing the mesh to expand; and/or in response to a second input, actuate the device movement mechanism to move the core wire in a second direction that is opposite the first direction, thereby causing the endovascular mesh to contract. Paragraph 191 states “system 700 is configured such that a user can manipulate the tension in the deployment member 706 to increase or decrease a diameter and/or length of the capture structure 701”, and paragraph 173 states” the capture structure 100 can be expanded via one or more pull-wires”. Therefore, Sadaat teaches a control device where a user input moves a pull wire to expand/contract a capture structure, and paragraph 169 states “the shape of the capture structure 100 substantially follows the shape of the frame 102” and the frame is said to comprise a mesh structure. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control device of Merril with the core wire and expandable mesh of Sadaat in order to incorporate control of a capture device within the device, creating functionality for more therapeutic operations.
Regarding claims 54, 55, and 57, Merril teaches the limitations of claim 50, but fails to teach the limitations of claims 54, 55, and 57. In regards to claim 54, Sadaat teaches an endovascular treatment system wherein the endovascular device comprises an expandable mesh and a core wire fixed with respect to a distal end of the expandable mesh, and wherein the control device is configured to actuate the core wire to cause expansion and contraction of the expandable mesh. Paragraph 191 states “system 700 is configured such that a user can manipulate the tension in the deployment member 706 to increase or decrease a diameter and/or length of the capture structure 701”, and paragraph 173 states” the capture structure 100 can be expanded via one or more pull-wires”. Therefore, Sadaat teaches a control device where a user input moves a pull wire to expand/contract a capture structure, and paragraph 169 states “the shape of the capture structure 100 substantially follows the shape of the frame 102” and the frame is said to comprise a mesh structure. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control device of Merril with the core wire and expandable mesh of Sadaat in order to incorporate control of a capture device within the device, creating functionality for more therapeutic operations.
In regards to claim 55, Sadaat teaches an endovascular treatment system of claim wherein the at least one processor of the control device is configured to: in response to the first input, actuate the device movement mechanism to move the core wire of the endovascular device in a first direction, thereby causing the mesh to expand; and/or in response to a second input, actuate the device movement mechanism to move the core wire in a second direction, thereby causing the mesh to contract. Paragraph 191 states “system 700 is configured such that a user can manipulate the tension in the deployment member 706 to increase or decrease a diameter and/or length of the capture structure 701”, and paragraph 173 states” the capture structure 100 can be expanded via one or more pull-wires”. Therefore, Sadaat teaches a control device where a user input moves a pull wire to expand/contract a capture structure, and paragraph 169 states “the shape of the capture structure 100 substantially follows the shape of the frame 102” and the frame is said to comprise a mesh structure. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control device of Merril with the core wire and expandable mesh of Sadaat in order to incorporate control of a capture device within the device, creating functionality for more therapeutic operations.
In regards to claim 57, Sadaat teaches an endovascular treatment system wherein the at least one processor of the control device is configured to cause expansion and contraction of the expandable mesh based on at least one of a user input via the input mechanism; a signal from at least one sensor; a signal from a processor of a user interface device; or computer-executable instructions for treatment with the device, stored in a memory. Paragraph 191 states “system 700 is configured such that a user can manipulate the tension in the deployment member 706 to increase or decrease a diameter and/or length of the capture structure 701”, and paragraph 173 states” the capture structure 100 can be expanded via one or more pull-wires”. Therefore, Sadaat teaches a control device where a user input moves a pull wire to expand/contract a capture structure, and paragraph 169 states “the shape of the capture structure 100 substantially follows the shape of the frame 102” and the frame is said to comprise a mesh structure. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control device of Merril with the core wire and expandable mesh of Sadaat in order to incorporate control of a capture device within the device, creating functionality for more therapeutic operations.
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merril in view of Zhang et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0105639, hereinafter “Zhang”). Merril teaches the elements of claim 50, but fails to teach an endovascular treatment system wherein the at least one processor of the control device is configured to adjust the ratio between a displacement of a first movable portion of the endovascular device by the device movement mechanism and a corresponding displacement of a second movable portion of the endovascular device by the device movement mechanism. Zhang teaches an endovascular treatment system wherein the at least one processor of the control device is configured to adjust the ratio between a displacement of a first movable portion of the endovascular device by the device movement mechanism and a corresponding displacement of a second movable portion of the endovascular device by the device movement mechanism. Paragraph 83 details an equation where “physical displacement of the joint (θ.sub.j) is based on a first position (θ.sub.m1) for a first actuator and a second actuator position (θ.sub.m2) for a second actuator”. The θ.sub.m1 and θ.sub.m2 values are understood to represent the displacement of the first and second movable portions of the endovascular device, and the ratio of displacement of each individual actuator is carried out by the control device in order to produce the final overall movement of the joint. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control device of Merril with multiple movable member configuration of Zhang in order to, through precise positional joint control, create a minimally-invasive surgical device as stated in paragraph 5.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merril in view of Peine et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0010350, hereinafter “Peine”). Merril teaches the elements of claims 50 and 51, but fails to teach an endovascular treatment system wherein the input mechanism comprises at least a first input structure for receiving the first input from the user and a second input structure for receiving the second input from the user, and wherein each of the first input structure and second input structure comprises at least one of a button, a keyboard, a computer mouse, a lever, a joystick, or a touch screen. Peine teaches an endovascular treatment system wherein the input mechanism comprises at least a first input structure for receiving the first input from the user and a second input structure for receiving the second input from the user, and wherein each of the first input structure and second input structure comprises at least one of a button, a keyboard, a computer mouse, a lever, a joystick, or a touch screen. Paragraph 136 details a first and second actuator for receiving inputs from the user, and states that they may be in the form of buttons. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control device of Merril with multiple button configuration of Peine in order to control different device movement aspects through the precise and controlled use of actuators rather than physically changing the insertion distance of the tool manually.
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merril and Sadaat in view of Yang et al (U.S. Patent 10,661,053, hereinafter “Yang”). While Merril and Sadaat combined teach the elements of claim 50 and 54, they fail to teach an endovascular treatment system wherein the at least one processor of the control device is configured to: in response to a third input, actuate the device movement mechanism to move the core wire of the device to exert a pulsatile force on an inner surface of the body structure; and/or in response to a fourth input, actuate the device movement mechanism to move the core wire in the second direction, thereby causing the mesh to contract, and to subsequently retract the device from the body structure. Yang teaches an endovascular treatment system wherein the at least one processor of the control device is configured to: in response to a third input, actuate the device movement mechanism to move the core wire of the device to exert a pulsatile force on an inner surface of the body structure; and/or in response to a fourth input, actuate the device movement mechanism to move the core wire in the second direction, thereby causing the mesh to contract, and to subsequently retract the device from the body structure. Paragraph 71 details a pull wire attached to a pull-away sheath that restrains an expandable mesh at the distal end of a catheter body, that when pulled, allows the mesh to expand, and when pushed back over the mesh, contracts the mesh and pulls it off of the body structure. Figures 4F and 4G show this process below.
PNG
media_image1.png
402
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control device of Merril and Sadaat with the core wire and retractable expandable mesh configuration of Yang in order to allow for aspiration of the treatment area during an operation, as detailed in the abstract.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAYTON BARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 –4:00 PM 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, Michael Carey can be reached at 5712707235. 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.
/DAYTON HYUN JIN BARKER/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795