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 the apparatus, claims 4-11, in the reply filed on 12/15/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-13 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/15/25.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, line 2, “its proximal end section” should read “a proximal end section of the control wire”.
In claim 5, line 2, “its separation” should read “the control wires separation”.
In claim 7, line 2, “the eyelet” should read “an eyelet of the hook-eyelet connection”.
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.
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 is: means… for fixation of the kink in claim 6.
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 § 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 6 and 10-11 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 6 recites the limitation "means…for fixation of the kink" in line 2. The structure the “means” is unclear.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the tool parts are designed as two legs connected to one another via a hinge” in lines 1-2. It is unclear if the “tool parts” is part of the claimed invention since it is not positively recited yet further defined. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as not part of the claimed invention and treated as functional language. Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 10 by virtue of dependency on claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Howell et al. (US 2011/0184345).
Regarding claim 1, an invention relating to obstruction removal device, Howell discloses (Figs. 1-2) a device (10) for the endoscopic removal of stones or concrements from the bile and pancreatic duct (Abstract), having a control wire (30) which is guided in a tube (20) and at the proximal end of which a control element (70) for the axial displacement of the control wire within the tube and at the distal end of which a catch basket (35) consisting of basket wires (36) are fastened [i.e. fastened at element 40] (Par. 0029 & 0046), wherein an axial displacement of the control wire by means of the control element leads to a loop-like expansion or contraction of the catch basket (Par. 0046), wherein the control wire is separable from the control element and is couplable for lithotripsy of the stone received by the catch basket to an actuating element [i.e. lithotripter], with which a sufficient force is producible on the catch basket (Par. 0047).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Howell et al. (US 2011/0184345) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McAlister (US 6,402,761).
Regarding claim 2, Howell discloses the device according to claim 1. Howell further discloses wherein a tractive force of up to 500N is applicable with the actuating element in order to shatter the stone [i.e. Howell details using a lithotripter for mechanically crushing a stone, hence a tractive force of up to 500N would obviously be applicated] (Abstract & Par. 0047).
In the analogous art of lithotripsy, McAlister teaches wherein a tractive force of up to 500N is applicable with the actuating element in order to shatter the stone (Abstract & Col. 7, lines 40-43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Howell to have wherein a tractive force of up to 500N is applicable with the actuating element in order to shatter the stone. Doing so would provide a device for repeated use that can crush larger foreign objects that cannot be removed intact (Abstract & Col. 1, lines 43-52), as taught by McAlister.
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 3-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howell et al. (US 2011/0184345) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ciervo et al. (US 5,403,324).
Regarding claim 3, Howell discloses the device according to claim 1. Howell fails to disclose wherein a traction means extends from the actuating element and is couplable to the control wire via a form-fitting connection.
In the analogous art of lithotripsy, Ciervo teaches (Fig. 2) wherein a traction means (54) extends from an actuating element (28 & 30) and is couplable to a control wire (14, 15, 17, 19) via a form-fitting connection (64 & 66; Col. 4, lines 30-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Howell to have wherein a traction means extends from the actuating element and is couplable to the control wire via a form-fitting connection. Doing so would provide a device for repeated use that can crush larger foreign objects that cannot be removed intact (Abstract & Col. 1, lines 43-52), as taught by McAlister.
Regarding claim 4, Howell, as modified by Ciervo, disclose wherein the form-fitting connection is designed as a hook-eyelet-connection [i.e. hook wire engagement with fixture plate holes see Ciervo column 4, lines 30-55].
Regarding claim 5, Howell, as modified by Ciervo, disclose wherein the control wire is provided with a kink at its proximal end section after its separation from the control element, the kinked proximal end section extending at an acute angle or parallel to the control wire [i.e. a kink (72) and a kinked proximal end section that is parallel to a distal section of the control wire, see Ciervo figure 2 and annotated figure below].
PNG
media_image1.png
295
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Howell, as modified by Ciervo, disclose wherein means interact with the proximal end section for fixation of the kink [i.e. hole 66 interacts with the proximal end section for fixation of the kink, see Ciervo figure 2 and column 4, lines 30-55].
Regarding claim 8, Howell, as modified by Ciervo, discloses wherein the actuating element has a shaft extending in the same longitudinal direction as the traction means and having a tensioning device, which is extending transversely thereto and rotatably mounted thereon and into which a proximal end of the traction means is suspendable [i.e. control shaft (30) and threaded portions (80-83), see Ciervo figures 3-4 and column 4, lines 56-68 & column 5, lines 1-5].
Regarding claims 9-11, Howell, as modified by Ciervo, discloses wherein the kink in the proximal end section of the control wire can be produced by means of a tool which has two tool parts performing an angular movement relative to one another [Claim 9]; wherein the tool parts are designed as two legs connected to one another via a hinge, the control wire being fixable to one of the legs [Claim 10]; and wherein the legs have grooves aligned with each other and for receiving the control wire and in that on at least one of the legs a clamp for fixing the control wire is provided [Claim 11] [see Ciervo figure 2 and Column 4, lines 30-55]. The claimed phrase is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is the kink in the proximal end section of the control wire. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howell et al. (US 2011/0184345), in view of Ciervo et al. (US 5,403,324) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Tremaglio et al. (US 2005/0250983).
Regarding claim 7, Howell, as modified by Ciervo, disclose wherein the proximal end section of the control wire suspended in the eyelet of the traction means is retracted together with the eyelet into a lumen of a spiral tube that serves as a means for fixation of the kink [i.e. the wires and the plate are retracted into handpiece and threaded portions (34, 80, 81), see Ciervo column 4, lines 56-68 & column 5, lines 1-5]. However, the combination fails to disclose a spiral tube made of metal.
In the analogous art of lithotripsy, Tremaglio teaches a spiral tube made of metal (Par. 0117).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Howell, in view of Ciervo, to have wherein a traction means extends from the actuating element and is couplable to the control wire via a form-fitting connection. Doing so would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (Par. 0117), as taught by Tremaglio.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Chima Igboko whose telephone number is (571)272-8422. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Jackie Ho, at (571) 272-4696. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.U.I/ Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/ASHLEY L FISHBACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771 January 11, 2026