DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“imaging device” in claims 1, and 18, and all dependent claims thereof. The examiner notes that “device” is the generic placeholder and “imaging” is the functional language.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) 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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8, 12-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al. (US 2022/0226114; hereinafter Hou), in view of Athanasiou et al. (US 2023/0363652; hereinafter Athanasiou).
Regarding claim 1, Hou discloses a balloon valvuloplasty catheter with IVUS. Hou shows an intravascular imaging catheter (see abstract), comprising: an elongate catheter shaft (see 110 in fig. 5) having a distal end region and a proximal region (see fig. 5; par. [0079]); wherein a guidewire lumen is defined in the elongate catheter shaft (see 112 in fig. 5; par. [0079]; wherein catheter shaft includes an imaging window disposed proximally of the distal end region and the imaging window being defined by an open gap in the catheter shaft (see fig. 5; par. [0083]); an imaging core (see 130 in fig. 5) disposed within the elongate catheter shaft (see fig. 5; par. [0083]); and wherein the imaging core includes an imaging device (see 132 in fig. 5) configured to be axially aligned with the imaging window (see fig. 5 and par. [0083]).
Furthermore, Hou teaches wherein the imaging core is configured to shift between a delivery position disposed within the distal end region around the imaging window (see fig. 5) and an imaging position where the imaging device is disposed along the image window (see fig. 5; par. [0083]), but Hou fails to explicitly state that the delivery position where the imaging device is disposed withing the distal end distally of the imaging window.
Athanasiou discloses an ultrasound imaging system (see par. [0036]). Hastings teaches that imaging core is configured to shift between delivery position where the imaging device is disposed within distal end region distally of imaging window (see par. [0053], [0056] and fig. 4) and imaging position where the imaging device is disposed along the imaging window (see par. [0053], [0056] and fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention that imaging core is configured to shift between delivery position where the imaging device is disposed within distal end region distally of imaging window and imaging position where the imaging device is disposed along the imaging window in the invention of Hou, as taught by Athanasiou, to be able to provide fast image data collection at multiple locations in a single pullback procedure.
Regarding claim 2, Hou shows wherein the distal end region is connected to the proximal region by a bridge region of the elongate catheter shaft (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Hou shows wherein the guidewire lumen is defined by a guidewire lumen shaft extending from the proximal region of the elongate catheter shaft to the distal end region of the elongate catheter shaft (see fig. 5; par. [0079]).
Regarding claim 4, Hou shows wherein the distal end region is coupled to the proximal region by the guidewire lumen shaft (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Hou shows wherein the open gap is formed by a cutout in the elongate catheter shaft (see fig. 5; par. [0083]).
Regarding claim 6, Hou shows wherein the distal end region of the elongate catheter shaft has a proximal end (see fig. 5), wherein the proximal region of the elongate catheter shaft has a distal end (see fig. 5, and wherein the open gap is disposed between the proximal end of the distal end region and the distal end of the proximal region (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Hou shows wherein shifting the imaging core from the delivery position to the imaging position includes axially shifting the imaging core relative to the elongate catheter shaft (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, Hou shows wherein the imaging device includes an ultrasound transducer (see par. [0083]).
Regarding claim 13, Hou discloses a balloon valvuloplasty catheter with IVUS. Hou shows an intravascular imaging catheter (see fig. 5 and abstract), comprising: an elongate imaging catheter sheath having a distal end region (fig. 5 and par. [0079], [0099]), a proximal region (see fig. 5), an imaging window region disposed between the distal end region and the proximal region; wherein the imaging window region is defined by an opening in the elongate imaging catheter sheath (see fig. 5; par. [0079], [0083]); a guidewire lumen shaft extending from the proximal region of the elongate imaging catheter sheath to the distal end region of the elongate imaging catheter sheath (see fig. 6; par. [0079]); an imaging core (see 130 in fig. 5) disposed within the elongate imaging catheter sheath (see fig. 5 and par. [0083]); wherein the imaging core includes an ultrasound imaging device (see par. [0083]).
Furthermore, Hou teaches wherein the imaging core is configured to shift between a delivery position disposed within the distal end region around the imaging window (see fig. 5) and an imaging position where the imaging device is disposed along the image window (see fig. 5; par. [0083]), but Hou fails to explicitly state that the delivery position where the imaging device is disposed withing the distal end distally of the imaging window.
Athanasiou discloses an ultrasound imaging system (see par. [0036]). Hastings teaches that imaging core is configured to shift between delivery position where the imaging device is disposed within distal end region distally of imaging window (see par. [0053], [0056] and fig. 4) and imaging position where the imaging device is disposed along the imaging window (see par. [0053], [0056] and fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention that imaging core is configured to shift between delivery position where the imaging device is disposed within distal end region distally of imaging window and imaging position where the imaging device is disposed along the imaging window in the invention of Hou, as taught by Athanasiou, to be able to provide fast image data collection at multiple of in a single pullback procedure.
Regarding claim 14, Hou shows wherein the distal end region of the elongate imaging catheter sheath is coupled to the proximal region of the elongate imaging catheter sheath by the guidewire lumen shaft (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15,Hou shows wherein the opening is formed by a cutout in the elongate imaging catheter sheath (see fig. 5; par. [0083]).
Regarding claim 16, Hou shows wherein the distal end region of the elongate imaging catheter sheath has a proximal end (see fig. 5), wherein the proximal region of the elongate imaging catheter sheath has a distal end (see fig. 5), and wherein the opening is disposed between the proximal end of the distal end region and the distal end of the proximal region (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 17, Hou shows wherein shifting the imaging core from the delivery position to the imaging position includes axially shifting the imaging core relative to the elongate imaging catheter sheath (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 18, Hou discloses a balloon valvuloplasty catheter with IVUS. Hou shows the method comprising: advancing an intravascular imaging catheter through a blood vessel to a position adjacent to an area of interest (see fig. 5; par. [0079], [0083]); wherein the intravascular imaging catheter comprises: an elongate catheter shaft (see 110 in fig. 5) having a distal end region and a proximal region (see fig. 5; par. [0079]), wherein a guidewire lumen is defined in the elongate catheter shaft (see 112 in fig. 5; par. [0079]), wherein the distal end region includes an imaging window defined by an open gap in the elongate catheter shaft (see fig. 5; par. [0083]), an imaging core (see 130 in fig. 5) disposed within the elongate catheter shaft (see fig. 5; par. [0083]), and wherein the imaging core includes an imaging device (see 132 in fig. 5); aligning the imaging device with the imaging window (see fig. 5); and imaging the blood vessel using the imaging device and while proximally retracting the elongate catheter shaft (see abstract; fig. 5; par. [0079], [0083]).
Furthermore, Hou teaches wherein the imaging core is configured to shift between a delivery position disposed within the distal end region around the imaging window (see fig. 5) and an imaging position where the imaging device is disposed along the image window (see fig. 5), wherein aligning the imaging device with the imaging window includes shifting the imaging core from the delivery position to the imaging position (see fig. 5; par. [0083]), but Hou fails to explicitly state that the delivery position where the imaging device is disposed withing the distal end distally of the imaging window.
Athanasiou discloses an ultrasound imaging system (see par. [0036]). Hastings teaches that imaging core is configured to shift between delivery position where the imaging device is disposed within distal end region distally of imaging window (see par. [0053], [0056] and fig. 4) and imaging position where the imaging device is disposed along the imaging window (see par. [0053], [0056] and fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention that imaging core is configured to shift between delivery position where the imaging device is disposed within distal end region distally of imaging window and imaging position where the imaging device is disposed along the imaging window in the invention of Hou, as taught by Athanasiou, to be able to provide fast image data collection at multiple of in a single pullback procedure.
Regarding claim 20, Hou shows wherein imaging the blood vessel using the imaging device and while proximally retracting the elongate catheter shaft includes proximally retracting the elongate catheter shaft and the imaging core (see abstract; fig. 5).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al. (US 2022/0226114; hereinafter Hou), in view of Athanasiou et al. (US 2023/0363652; hereinafter Athanasiou) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stigall et al. (US 2020/0037985; hereinafter Stigall).
Regarding claim 9, Hou and Athanasiou discloses the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fails to explicitly state wherein the imaging device is coupled to an imaging housing.
Stigall discloses a IVUS device. Stigall teaches that the imaging device is coupled to an imaging housing (see par. [0035], [0036]; 116 in fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of the imaging device is coupled to an imaging housing in the invention of Hou and Athanasiou, as taught by Stigall, to be able to protect the ultrasound element, and housing for the ultrasound transducer components.
Regarding claim 10, Hou, Athanasiou and Stigall disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Hou teaches wherein the imaging device has a proximal section that extends into the proximal region of the elongate catheter shaft (see fig. 5), and Stigall teaches the imaging housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of the imaging housing in the invention of Hou and Athanasiou, as taught by Stigall, to be able to protect the ultrasound element, and housing for the ultrasound transducer components.
Regarding claim 11, Hou, Athanasiou and Stigall disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Hou teaches wherein the imaging device has a distal section that extends into the distal end region of the elongate catheter shaft (see fig. 5), and Stigall teaches the imaging housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of the imaging housing in the invention of Hou and Athanasiou, as taught by Stigall, to be able to protect the ultrasound element, and housing for the ultrasound transducer components.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/12/2025 with respect to prior art rejection of independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any rejection applied in the prior office action of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner has provided new prior art Athanasiou.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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, Anne M Kozak can be reached at (571)270-0552. 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.
/SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797