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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 34-42) in the reply filed on 2/2/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 49-50 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of correlating vascular measurements, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/2/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 34 and 36-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muessig (US 2016/0067474 A1).
Regarding claim 34, Muessig discloses:
A method of deploying an expandable structure (see Figs. 1 and 4 and Para. [0047]) within a vessel (see Para. [0012]-[0014] and [0048]) for stimulation of nerves surrounding the vessel (see Para. [0012] and [0047]), the method comprising:
inserting the expandable structure within the vessel to a target location along a length of the vessel (see Para. [0012]-[0014] and [0047]), the expandable structure comprising a plurality of electrodes (see Fig. 4 and Para. [0057] mentioning a “plurality of electrodes 14”) adapted to be activated to cause stimulation of the nerves surrounding the vessel (see Para. [0012]-[0014], [0047] and [0058]) and a radiopaque marker (see Para. [0030] and [0069]-[0070] mentioning wherein at least one portion of the support members (6), struts (12), tether, or filaments (3) may include radiopaque markers visual under x-ray fluoroscopy; for the purposes of examination, a portion of the struts (12) are interpreted to comprise the radiopaque elements) positioned so as not to longitudinally overlap with any of the plurality of electrodes on the expandable structure (see Figs. 2-3; electrodes (14) are protruding elements from struts (12) and thus do not longitudinally overlap therewith);
imaging the expandable structure using an imaging modality adapted to facilitate visualization of radiopaque material (see Para. [0030] and [0069]-[0070] mentioning wherein x-ray imaging is done to visualize the radiopaque elements of the device during navigation and use);
determining a rotational orientation of the expandable structure based the radiopaque marker prior to fully expanding the expandable structure to contact a wall of the vessel (see Para. [0030] and [0069]-[0070] mentioning wherein x-ray fluoroscopy is utilized to determine the location and rotational orientation of the device during navigation and implantation; the orientation of the device would be continuously monitored and corrected during navigation and placement before the stent is expanded to reduce risk of damage to the vessel and/or surrounding nerves);
adjusting the rotational orientation of the expandable structure based on the determining the rotational orientation of the expandable structure (see Para. [0030] and [0069]-[0070] mentioning wherein the location and rotational orientation of the device is continuously monitored under x-ray fluoroscopy during navigation and implantation; one of ordinary skill would ensure proper orientation of the device during navigation as part of the monitoring process unless otherwise stated); and
fully expanding the expandable structure within the vessel (see Para. [0011], [0024]-[0026] and [0047]).
Regarding claim 36, Muessig discloses the method of claim 34, Muessig further discloses wherein the radiopaque marker comprises a V-shaped marker (see Figs. 3-4 showing wherein the struts (12) comprise V-Shaped orientations) and wherein determining the rotational orientation of the expandable structure comprises determining whether the V- shaped marker is right-side-up or upside-down (depending on the V-Shaped section of the struts (12) a user is monitoring, the inherent shape and orientation of the struts would cause the radiopaque V-Shaped strut section to either be right-side up or upside-down; see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 3 below pointing to a designated radiopaque strut section that is oriented right-side up at all times).
PNG
media_image1.png
323
631
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 3
Regarding claim 37, Muessig discloses the method of claim 34, Muessig further discloses wherein the radiopaque marker is positioned distal to any of the plurality of electrodes (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 3 above showing an electrode positioned proximally of the designated radiopaque section of the struts).
Regarding claim 38, Muessig discloses the method of claim 34, Muessig further discloses wherein the radiopaque marker is circumferentially aligned with at least one of the plurality of electrodes (see Fig. 3 showing wherein the labeled electrodes (14) are circumferentially aligned with sections of the struts).
Regarding claim 39, Muessig discloses the method of claim 38, Muessig further discloses wherein the radiopaque marker is circumferentially aligned with a proximal-most electrode of the plurality of electrodes (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 3_Proximal Electrode below showing wherein a designated radiopaque section of the struts is circumferentially aligned with a proximal-most electrode).
PNG
media_image2.png
325
631
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 3_Proximal Electrode
Regarding claim 40, Muessig discloses the method of claim 38, Muessig further discloses wherein the radiopaque marker is circumferentially aligned with a distal-most electrode of the plurality of electrodes (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 3_Distal Electrode below showing wherein a designated radiopaque section of the struts is circumferentially aligned with a distal-most electrode; since Muessig only discloses wherein a portion of the struts can be radiopaque but does not give an express location for the radiopaque section, it is a matter of obviousness to have any section of the struts comprise the radiopaque section).
PNG
media_image3.png
323
631
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 3_Distal Electrode
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.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muessig (US 2016/0067474 A1) in view of Heraty (US 2011/0257673 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Muessig discloses all of the limitations of the method of claim 34.
However, Muessig does not expressly disclose partially expanding the expandable structure prior to the determining the rotational orientation of the expandable structure.
In the same field of endeavor, namely expandable medical devices comprising a radiopaque feature configured to aid in orientation of said device within a surgical area, Heraty teaches an expandable medical device (see Fig. 2A and Para. [0002]-[0005]) having one or more radiopaque markers disposed along the body of the device (see Para. [0009]-[0010]) such that when the expandable element is inflated, the radiopaque markers become more clearly visible relative to additional reference points under fluoroscopy. During this enhanced image of the radiopaque markers during initial expansion, a user may correct or adjust the position of the device within the target blood vessel lumen (see Para. [0107]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of being obvious to try (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) to have partially expanded the expanded member of Muessig prior to determining the rotational orientation under fluoroscopy to allow for a better, more clear image of the orientation of the device during the initial stages of expansion, making adjustments to the orientation as needed during subsequent expansion as suggested by the disclosure of Heraty. Since there are only a finite number of possible times to view and check the orientation of the device within a vessel (i.e., when completely unexpanded, partially expanded or fully expanded), it would be a matter of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art to have partially expanded the expandable member of Muessig before determining the rotational orientation of the device to have allowed for a more clear image of the device in a target area when the individual strut elements are further apart from one-another, allowing for a more clear view of the relative location of the individual strut elements during the partially-expanded shape.
Claim(s) 41-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muessig (US 2016/0067474 A1) in view of Ransbury (US 2013/0072995 A1).
Regarding claim 41, Muessig discloses all of the limitations of the method of claim 34.
However, while Muessig discloses an optional inclusion of a delivery tool (see Para. [0027]), Muessig does not expressly disclose wherein expanding the expandable structure comprises retracting an outer sheath surrounding the expandable structure.
In the same field of endeavor, namely expandable nerve stimulation devices, Ransbury teaches a vascular nerve stimulation devices (see Fig. 5A and 7) comprising an expandable structure (anchor elements 18, see Figs. 5A and 7; see also Para. [0025]) having a plurality of electrodes thereon (electrodes 20 and 34, see Para. [0025]); wherein the expandable structure is delivered through an outer sheath (outer sleeve 36, see Fig. 7 and Para. [0026]) would protects the device from the external vascular environment until at a target site; wherein upon retraction said outer sheeve, the expandable structure self-expands to contact the vessel wall (see Para. [0026]).
Since Muessig discloses a delivery system comprising a delivery sheath but does not provide substantial functional details pertaining to this system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have looked to the available prior art for similar analogous devices any accompanying delivery sheath system and modified the delivery system of Muessig to comprise the delivery sheath system disclosed by Ransbury comprising a retractable outer sleeve within which the expandable structure is disposed during the navigation and delivery process which would protect the device during navigation through tortuous anatomy such that, upon retraction of the outer sleeve, the expandable structure is able to self-expand to a deployed configuration (see Ransbury Para. [0026]).
Regarding claim 42, Muessig discloses all of the limitations of the method of claim 34, Muessig further discloses wherein the expandable structure comprises an expandable braided structure (see Fig. 4 and Para. [0059] mentioning wherein the expandable structure may comprise flexible woven fabric (17) interconnected between the strut elements).
However, Muessig does not expressly disclose wherein the expandable structure is self-expandable.
In the same field of endeavor, namely expandable nerve stimulation devices, Ransbury teaches a vascular nerve stimulation devices (see Fig. 5A and 7) comprising an expandable structure (anchor elements 18, see Figs. 5A and 7; see also Para. [0025]) having a plurality of electrodes thereon (electrodes 20 and 34, see Para. [0025]); wherein the expandable structure is delivered through an outer sheath (outer sleeve 36, see Fig. 7 and Para. [0026]) would protects the device from the external vascular environment until at a target site; wherein upon retraction said outer sheeve, the expandable structure self-expands to contact the vessel wall (see Para. [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of simple substitution of one known expansion mechanism for another (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) to have obtained the predictable result of having the expandable strut structure of Muessig be self-expandable upon release from the disclosed delivery device. While Muessig discloses wherein the expandable structure is dilatable from a compressed state to a radially expanded state via a delivery tool (see Para. [0011], [0026]-[0027]), Muessig does not provide substantial structural or functional disclosure pertaining to how the delivery tool operates to radially expand the expandable member. In seeking to provide a known means from analogous art to accomplish the disclosed expansion operation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have looked to the prior art for similar devices to be utilized in the expansion system of Muessig. Upon incorporation of the expansion system of Ransbury into the device of Muessig, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the expandable member to function appropriately should the expandable member be expanded via self-expanding strut elements upon retraction of an outer delivery sleeve, as disclosed by Ransbury.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure. See the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, US 2020/0206511 A1 to Goedeke, US 2004/0088042 A1 to Kim, US 2018/0161577 A1 to Goedeke, US 2017/0259057 A1 to Muessig and US 2003/0125790 A1 to Fastovsky all disclose neural stimulation devices comprising an expandable structure having at least one stimulating electrode disposed thereon.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MITCHELL B HOAG whose telephone number is (571)272-0983. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 5712724695. 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.
/M.B.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/DARWIN P EREZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771