Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed June 6th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 24-29, 50-59, 62-63 remain pending in the application. Applicants amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection and claim objection previously set forth in the office action mailed March 16th, 2026.
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 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 § 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.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merril et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0040737, hereinafter “Merril”) in view of Crawford (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0361357). 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”).
Merril fails to teach a system wherein the input includes first data of at least one medical image captured before or during a procedure performed with the endovascular device. Crawford teaches a system wherein the input includes first data of at least one medical image (paragraph 146 details use of a medical image of the patient’s anatomy to move a distal end of the medical device within the patient) captured before or during a procedure performed with the endovascular device. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Merril with the medical image of Crawford in order to incorporate patient specific data (medical image of the patient’s anatomy) into the control of movement of a device within the patient. This incorporation lowers the risk of injury or discomfort to the patient by alerting the operator exactly to the inner structure of the target region of the patient, allowing them to maneuver the device optimally during the operation.
Regarding claim 2, Merril further 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”); and 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 further 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”), and a device including at least a second processor.
Claims 24-29 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”). 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”)
Merril fails to teach a control device wherein the endovascular device comprises an expandable mesh, and wherein the movable portion of the endovascular device comprises a core wire fixed relative to a distal end of the expandable mesh.
Sadaat teaches a control device wherein the endovascular device comprises an expandable mesh, and wherein the movable portion of the endovascular device comprises a core wire fixed relative to a distal end of the expandable mesh (figure 7B wire 706 attached relative to distal end of 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.
Regarding claim 25, Merril further 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 26, Merril and Sadaat combined teach the limitations of claim 24, and Sadaat further 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 27, Merril further 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 28, Merril and Sadaat combined teach the limitations of claim 24, and Sadaat further teaches a control device 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. 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 claim 29, Merril and Sadaat combined teach the limitations of claim 24, and Sadaat further 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.
Claims 50, 51-52, 58, 59, and 62-63 are rejected 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”). 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:
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”)
Merril fails to teach an endovascular treatment system comprising a control device comprising a user interface comprising an input mechanism configured to receive input from a user. Zhang teaches an endovascular treatment system comprising a control device comprising a user interface comprising an input mechanism configured to receive input from a user (paragraph 113 details the use of a touch screen display for the user to use as an input device). 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 system of Merril with the touch screen user interface of Zhang in order to provide an adaptable and familiar control system for the operator (touch screens are commonly used in many applications, and can be adapted to control different aspects of the device depending on what controls are displayed on the screen).
Regarding claim 51, Merril further 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 52, Merril and Zhang combined teach the limitations of claim 50, and Zhang further 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.
Regarding claim 58, Merril further teaches an endovascular treatment comprising at least one of a force meter (paragraph 30 “handle 17 can be disposed adjacent force-torque sensor 19”); and an image display device.
Regarding claim 59, Merril further 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 further 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 force measurement signal obtained from a force meter (paragraph 30 “force-torque sensor”); and computer-executable instructions for treatment with the device, stored in a memory
Regarding claim 63, Merril further 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 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merril and Zhang in view of Peine et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0010350, hereinafter “Peine”). Merril and Zhang teach the elements of claims 50 and 51, but fail 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.
Claims 54, 55, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merril and Zhang in view of Sadaat. In regards to claim 54, Merril and Zhang combined teach the limitations of claim 50, but fail to teach 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. 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 devices of Merril and Zhang 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 claim 55, Sadaat further 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 devices of Merril and Zhang 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 claim 57, Sadaat further 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; and 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 devices of Merril and Zhang 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 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merril, Zhang, and Sadaat in view of Yang et al (U.S. Patent 10,661,053, hereinafter “Yang”). While Merril, Zhang, and Sadaat combined teach the elements of claims 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, Zhang, 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DAYTON BARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00–5:00 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
Prosecution Insights