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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/30/2024 and 08/20/2025 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 12, 13, 16, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 17: “an” should be replaced with –the–;
Claim 5, line 1: –configured to be– should be inserted after “valve is”;
Claim 5, line 1: –configured to be– should be inserted after “valve is”;
Claim 12, line 10: “an” should be replaced with –the–;
Claim 13, line 2: both instances of “an” should be replaced with –the–;
Claim 13, line 2: “a trained” should be replaced with –the trained–;
Claim 15, line 2: both instances of “an” should be replaced with –the–;
Claim 15, line 2: “a trained” should be replaced with –the trained–;
Claim 16, line 1: –configured to be– should be inserted after “valve is”;
Claim 16, line 2: –configured to be– should be inserted after “valve is”; and
Claim 18, line 11: “an” should be replaced with –the–.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
No limitations were interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “apply the sensor data and an indication of the amount of power consumed by the motor as an input to a trained artificial intelligence model” in lines 14-16. An input indicates that there is one input. However, the sensor data and the indication of the amount of power amount to a plurality of elements. Therefore, it is unclear whether there are a plurality of inputs or just one input. For the purposes of examination, the recitation of “an input” will be interpreted to be –inputs–. The recitation of “an input” in line 17 will be interpreted to be –the inputs–. Claims 12 and 18 recite similar limitations, so they are rejected on similar grounds.
Claims 2-11 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claims 13-17 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 12.
Claims 19-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 18.
Claim 2 recites “further cause the processor to apply the sensor data, the indication of the amount of power consumed by the motor, and a type of the motor as an input to the trained artificial intelligence model” in lines 2-4. Claim 1 recites “apply the sensor data and an indication of the amount of power consumed by the motor as an input to a trained artificial intelligence model” in lines 14-16. It is unclear whether the application in claim 2 is the same as, related to, or different from the application in claim 1. The language of claim 2 suggest that they are different applications (i.e., there is a reapplication of the sensor data and the indication). However, the specification does not suggest that there are different application steps. For the purposes of examination, the recitation in claim 2 will be interpreted to be “further cause the processor to apply additional input to the trained artificial intelligence model”. Claims 4, 13, 15, 19, and 20 recite similar limitations, so the claims are rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 3 recites “the catheter configured to be inserted into a venous system” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim does not previously recite a catheter configured to be inserted into a venous system. For the purposes of examination, the recitation will be interpreted to be “the catheter, wherein the catheter is configured to be inserted into a venous system”. Claims 9, 14, and 20 recite similar limitations, so the claims are rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 5 recites “the valve is closed when the inner sheath is in the protracted position” in lines 1-2. However, the specification teaches that the valve is open when the inner sheath is in the protracted position (Fig. 3B) and the valve is closed when the inner sheath is in the retracted position (Fig. 3A). Therefore, it is unclear in light of the specification whether the valve is closed when the inner sheath is in the protracted or retracted position. For the purposes of examination, the recitation will be interpreted to be “the valve is closed when the inner sheath is in the retracted position”. Claim 16 recites a similar limitation, so it is rejected on similar grounds.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 8, 11, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0007760 A1 (Reisin) in view of US 5,562,610 A (Brumbach).
With regards to claims 1, 12, and 18, to the extent that it can be argued that all features taught by Reisin are not provided in a single embodiment, Reisin discloses a variety of alternative and additional embodiments that are provided in a variety of combinations so that the benefits of these various features can be utilized. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the various features in the alternative and additional embodiments so as to derive the benefits of these features, as suggested by Reisin. See ¶¶ [0102]-[0103] of Reisin.
The above combination of Reisin teaches a system (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0052] discloses a surgical system 100), a computer-implemented method for actuating an inner sheath of a catheter (Fig. 20 and ¶¶ [0094]-[0095] depict a processor executing an algorithm based on program instructions stored in the memory for implementing the operations of Figs. 13, 14, 18, and 19; ¶ [0092] discloses implementing optimized ultrasound (US), aspiration, and/or irrigation settings at desired values related to ultrasound power, frequency, aspiration levels, speed, and/or irrigation rates; Fig. 2A and ¶ [0056] depict a distal end of an ultrasound catheter tubular body 110 in which an inner core 250 is actuated to vibrate), a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions for actuating an inner sheath of a catheter (Fig. 20 and ¶¶ [0094]-[0095] depict a processor executing an algorithm based on program instructions stored in the memory for implementing the operations of Figs. 13, 14, 18, and 19; ¶ [0092] discloses implementing optimized ultrasound (US), aspiration, and/or irrigation settings at desired values related to ultrasound power, frequency, aspiration levels, speed, and/or irrigation rates; Fig. 2A and ¶ [0056] depict a distal end of an ultrasound catheter tubular body 110 in which an inner core 250 is actuated to vibrate), comprising: a catheter comprising an outer sheath and an inner sheath (Figs. 1, 2A-2B and ¶ [0055] depict an ultrasound catheter 102 comprising a tubular body 110 comprising an outer sheath 260 and an inner core 250 which comprises an aspiration lumen 116); one or more sensors coupled to the catheter (¶¶ [0077]-[0078] discloses the system including sensing and monitoring of surgical parameters and incorporating one or more sensors to the system, wherein incorporating the sensors to the system amounts to coupling the sensors to the catheter 102); and a control unit coupled to the catheter and the one or more sensors (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0052] depict a control system 130), wherein the control unit comprises: drive circuitry configured to move the inner sheath with respect to the outer sheath (¶ [0054] discloses drive circuitry 136 in connection with the transducer to drive the transducer at a select operating frequency); a processor configured with computer-executable instructions, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (¶ [0081] discloses the control system 130 may be programmed, which indicates that it comprises a programmed processor; Fig. 20 and ¶¶ [0094]-[0095] depict a processor executing an algorithm based on program instructions stored in the memory for implementing the operations of Figs. 13, 14, 18, and 19): obtain sensor data from at least one of the one or more sensors (Fig. 13 and ¶ [0084] discloses different defined and programmed sensed parameters may be sensed at 1303; ¶ [0078] discloses the sensed parameters); determine an amount of power consumed by the drive circuitry while moving the inner sheath with respect to the outer sheath (¶¶ [0016], [0088] discloses monitoring ultrasound power, ultrasound frequency, ultrasound phase, ultrasound stroke and measuring directly and/or changes in one or more parameters such as, but not limited to, ultrasound characteristics (such as frequency, amplitude, phase, mechanical load, impedance, voltage, current, and/or stroke length), which amount to measures of an amount of power consumed by the drive circuitry); apply the sensor data and an indication of the amount of power consumed by the motor as an input to a trained artificial intelligence model (Fig. 13 and ¶ [0084] disclose communicating values of the sensed parameters to the machine learning application(s) at 1304), wherein application of the sensor data and the indication of the amount of power consumed by the motor as an input to the trained artificial intelligence model causes the trained artificial intelligence model to output an amplitude and a frequency (Fig. 13 and ¶ [0084] disclose the machine learning application(s) determines the tissue type/properties at 1305 and preferred/optimized system settings at 1306 for the identified type of tissue, wherein the optimized settings can include one or more values related to any of the machine parameters; ¶ [0084] and Fig. 13 indicate that the optimized parameters are the same as the sensed parameters, which indicate that the ultrasound characteristics (such as frequency and amplitude) are output); and cause the drive circuitry to adjust operation so that the inner sheath oscillates between a retracted position and a protracted position by a distance corresponding to the amplitude at the frequency (Fig. 13 and ¶ [0084] depict updating the system with optimized surgical parameters; ¶ [0016] discloses the ultrasound stroke length is sensed and modified-see ¶ [0084]; Fig. 2 and ¶ [0058] depict the back and forth movement 270 of the needle tip 234 is defined as the stroke length, wherein the back and forth movement is between a retracted position and a protracted position).
Reisin is silent regarding whether the control unit comprises: a motor configured to move the inner sheath with respect to the outer sheath.
In a system relevant to the problem of driving ultrasonic catheters, Brumbach teaches an ultrasonic motor configured to move the inner sheath with respect to the outer sheath (Fig. 1 and Col. 2, line 63 to Col. 3, line 23 and Col. 4, lines 10-47 depict a motor for generating ultrasonic vibrations that are transmitted to an operating end of the needle). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the drive circuit and associated elements of the control unit of Reisin with a motor configured to move the inner sheath with respect to the outer sheath as taught by Brumbach. Because both elements are capable of driving ultrasonic vibrations, it would have been the simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results.
With regards to claim 8, the above combination teaches or suggests the one or more sensors comprises at least one of a flow sensor, a contact sensor, a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, or a camera (¶ [0016] of Reisin teaches one or more sensors to the system, such as, but not limited to, pressure sensors, flow sensors, optical sensors, accelerometers, displacement sensors and/or others).
With regards to claim 11, the above combination teaches or suggests a catheter actuation training system configured with second computer-executable instructions, wherein the second computer-executable instructions, when executed, cause the catheter actuation training system (¶ [0083] discloses one or more internal and/or external computing devices used to train the machine learning algorithms, which necessarily includes computer-executable instructions) to: train an artificial intelligence model using training data to form the trained artificial intelligence model (Fig. 12 and ¶ [0083] of Reisin discloses a machine learning training algorithm 1202 may be developed to train the machine learning to find patterns within the provided data); and cause the trained artificial intelligence model to be loaded onto a storage medium of the control unit (¶ [0083] of Reisin discloses the machine learning application(s) can reside within a computing device internal and/or external to the system control, and one or more internal and/or external computing devices can be used to train the machine learning algorithm(s)).
Claims 2, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reisin in view of Brumbach, as applied to respective claims 1, 12, and 18 above, and further in view of US 2017/0268960 A1 (Jaramillo-Velasques)
With regards to claim 2, 13, and 19, in view of the indefiniteness as indicated in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) above, claim 2 is being interpreted to be “further cause the processor to apply additional input to the trained artificial intelligence model”. Claims 13 and 19 are being interpreted in a similar manner.
The above combination is silent regarding whether the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to apply a type of the motor as an input to the trained artificial intelligence model.
In a system relevant to the problem of assessing a condition of system connected to a motor, Jaramillo-Velasques teaches applying a type of the motor as an input to the trained artificial intelligence model (¶ [0021] discloses indicating a condition of a type and model of a model of a motor; Claim 1 indicates inputting the condition into the neural network). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the trained artificial intelligence model of the above combination to incorporate applying a type of the motor as an input to the model as taught by Jaramillo-Velasques. The motivation would have been to improve the AI model by allowing it to work with different motors.
Claims 3, 6, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reisin in view of Brumbach, as applied to respective claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of US 2008/0097471 A1 (Adams)
With regards to claims 3 and 14, the above combination teaches or suggests a distal end of the catheter is configured to be inserted into a venous system (¶ [0052] of Reisin discloses the catheter 102 being dimensioned for entry into the vasculature).
The above combination is silent regarding a valve at a distal end of the catheter.
In a system relevant to the problem of delivering oscillating cutters, Adams teaches a valve at a distal end of a sheath (¶ [0133] and Fig. 1B disclose a sheath 110 including one or more valves within one or more lumens of sheath 110, such as a valve near the distal end 111). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the above combination to incorporate a valve at a distal end of the catheter, based on the teachings of Adams. The motivation would have been to prevent extraneous elements from entering the sheath.
With regards to claims 6, the above combination teaches or suggests the valve is open when the inner sheath is in the protracted position (¶ [0133] and Fig. 1B of Adams disclose a sheath 110 including one or more valves within one or more lumens of sheath 110, such as a valve near the distal end 111, which is necessarily open when the inner element is extended through the sheath).
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reisin in view of Brumbach and Adams, as applied to respective claims 3 and 14 above, and further in view of US 2021/0011944 A1 (Kuroda).
With regards to claims 4 and 15, in view of the indefiniteness as indicated in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) above, claim 4 is being interpreted to recite “apply additional input to the trained artificial intelligence model”. Claim 15 is being interpreted in a similar manner.
The above combination is silent regarding whether the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to apply a type of the valve included in the catheter as an additional input to the trained artificial intelligence model.
In a system relevant to analyzing information using a machine learning system, Kuroda teaches applying a type of a device as input to a trained artificial intelligence model (¶¶ [0049]-[0050] depicts a data structure for machine learning using training data that includes evaluation target information; ¶ [0051] discloses the evaluation target information including an identification label which may include a serial number, a product name, a model type for identifying the device that may be used; ¶ [0098] discloses the instrumentation device 4 may be a valve). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the trained artificial intelligence of the above combination to incorporate, based on the teachings of Kuroda, applying a type of the valve included in the catheter as an additional input to the trained artificial intelligence model. The motivation would have been to input more information such that the device can be better controlled. See at least ¶ [0098] of Kuroda which discloses using the instrumentation for fulfilling a mission in a process.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reisin in view of Brumbach and Adams, as applied to respective claims 3 and 14 above, and further in view of US 4,693,257 A (Markham)
With regards to claims 5 and 16, in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), the claims are being interpreted to be “the valve is closed when the inner sheath is in the retracted position”.
The above combination is silent regarding whether the valve is closed when the inner sheath is in the retracted position.
In the same field of endeavor of aspiration devices, Markham teaches a valve configured to be closed when an inner sheath is in a retracted position (Fig. 3 depicts a flapper valve 30 which is closed while the needle is in a retracted position) and the valve is configured to be open when the inner sheath is in the protracted position (Fig. 5 depicts the flapper valve 30 opening while the needle is in a protracted position). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the valve of the above combination to incorporate that it is configured to be closed when an inner sheath is in a retracted position and configured to be open when the inner sheath is in the protracted position as taught by Markham. The motivation would have been to eliminate the aspiration of unwanted elements (see Col. 1, lines 35-42 of Markham).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reisin in view of Brumbach and Adams, as applied to respective claims 3 and 14 above, and further in view of Jaramillo-Velasques
With regards to claim 7 and 17, the above combination is silent regarding whether trained intelligence model is associated with at least one of a type of the valve or a type of the motor.
In a system relevant to the problem of assessing a condition of system connected to a motor, Jaramillo-Velasques teaches the trained intelligence model is associated with at least one of a type of the valve or a type of the motor (¶ [0021] discloses indicating a condition of a type and model of a model of a motor; Claim 1 indicates the neural network is associated with the type and model of the motor). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the trained artificial intelligence model of the above combination to incorporate that it is associated with at least one of a type of the valve or a type of the motor as taught by Jaramillo-Velasques. The motivation would have been to improve the accuracy of the AI model by ensuring that it is associated with the motor being used.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reisin in view of Brumbach, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5,419,761 A1 (Narayanan)
With regards to claim 9, the above combination teaches or suggests a distal end of the catheter is configured to be inserted into a venous system (¶ [0052] of Reisin discloses the catheter 102 being dimensioned for entry into the vasculature).
The above combination is silent regarding whether at least some of the one or more sensors are coupled to a distal end of the catheter.
In a system relevant to the problem of detecting parameters of reciprocating motion, Narayanan teaches at least one or more sensors are coupled to a distal end of a tube (Col. 6, lines 31-45 depict a first detector connected to a tube for sensing an amplitude of reciprocating motion of the distal end of the tube during generation of the ultrasonic wave). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified at least some of the sensors of Reisin to incorporate that they are coupled to a distal end of the catheter, based on the teachings of Narayanan. The motivation would have been to provide an improved sensing location for the sensors.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reisin in view of Brumbach, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2004/0153109 A1 (Tiedtke)
With regards to claim 10, the above combination teaches or suggests a proximal end of the catheter toward which one or more blood clot pieces are configured to be aspirated during operation of the catheter. (¶ [0055] and Fig. 2 of Reisin depict an inner core 250 which may define, at least in part, an aspiration lumen 116, which extends longitudinally along the entire length of the catheter 102).
The above combination is silent regarding whether at least some of the one or more sensors are coupled to a proximal end of the catheter.
In a system relevant to the problem of detecting parameters of a thrombectomy catheter, sensors are coupled to a proximal end of the catheter (¶ [0010] discloses pressure changes and/or noise or sound waves occurring on the distal end section of the catheter are determined according to the invention on the proximal end section of the catheter by a sensor or measurement device; also see the sensors on the proximal end of the catheter as disclosed in ¶¶ [0018], [0019]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified at least some of the sensors of Reisin to incorporate that they are coupled to a proximal end of the catheter as taught by Tiedtke. The motivation would have been to provide an improved sensing location for the sensors.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reisin in view of Brumbach, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Adams and Kuroda.
With regards to claim 18, the above combination teaches or suggests a distal end of the catheter is configured to be inserted into a venous system (¶ [0052] of Reisin discloses the catheter 102 being dimensioned for entry into the vasculature).
The above combination is silent regarding a valve at a distal end of the catheter.
In a system relevant to the problem of delivering oscillating cutters, Adams teaches a valve at a distal end of a sheath (¶ [0133] and Fig. 1B disclose a sheath 110 including one or more valves within one or more lumens of sheath 110, such as a valve near the distal end 111). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the above combination to incorporate a valve at a distal end of the catheter, based on the teachings of Adams. The motivation would have been to prevent extraneous elements from entering the sheath.
In view of the indefiniteness as indicated in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) above, claim 20 is being interpreted to recite “apply additional input to the trained artificial intelligence model”.
The above combination is silent regarding whether the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to apply a type of the valve included in the catheter as an additional input to the trained artificial intelligence model.
In a system relevant to analyzing information using a machine learning system, Kuroda teaches applying a type of a device as input to a trained artificial intelligence model (¶¶ [0049]-[0050] depicts a data structure for machine learning using training data that includes evaluation target information; ¶ [0051] discloses the evaluation target information including an identification label which may include a serial number, a product name, a model time for identifying the device that may be used; ¶ [0098] discloses the instrumentation device 4 may be a valve). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the trained artificial intelligence of the above combination to incorporate, based on the teachings of Kuroda, applying a type of the valve included in the catheter as an additional input to the trained artificial intelligence model. The motivation would have been to input more information such that the device can be better controlled. See at least ¶ [0098] of Kuroda which discloses using the instrumentation for fulfilling a mission in a process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8637. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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.
/S.C.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights