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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 04/08/26 has been entered. Claims 1, 5, and 7-10 have been amended, claims 3-4 and 6 have been cancelled, and claims 12-13 remain withdrawn. Claims 1-2, 5, and 7-11 are addressed in the following office action.
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, 5, and 8 are 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), both cited in previous office action.
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). Howell fails to further disclose wherein a traction means extends from the actuating element and is couplable to the control wire via a form-fitting connection, and wherein the form-fitting connection is a hook-eyelet-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), wherein the form-fitting connection is a hook-eyelet-connection [i.e. hook wire engagement with fixture plate holes see Ciervo column 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, and wherein the form-fitting connection is a hook-eyelet-connection. Doing so would provide a coupling means for the control wire and maintain the control wires in position when operating the tube (Col. 4, lines 30-33), as taught by Ciervo.
Regarding claim 5, Howell, as modified by Ciervo, disclose wherein the control wire is provided with a kink at a proximal end section after the control wire’s 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 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].
Claim 2 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 1 above, and further in view of McAlister (US 6,402,761) in the alternative and cited in the previous office action.
Regarding claim 2, Howell, as modified by Ciervo, 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, in view of Ciervo, 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 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), cited in previous office action.
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.
Claims 9-11 are 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 Rafiee et al. (US 2021/0137579).
Regarding claims 9-11, Howell, as modified by Ciervo, discloses the device according to claim 5. Howell fails to disclose further comprising a tool that has two tool parts configured to perform an angular movement relative to one another, wherein the kink in the proximal end section of the control wire is producible by the tool [Claim 9]; wherein the tool parts are 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].
In the analogous art of gripping devices, Rafiee teaches (Figs. 105-114) a tool [i.e. kinker block] that has two tool parts (see annotated figure below) configured to perform an angular movement relative to one another [i.e. pivot], wherein the kink in the proximal end section of a control wire [i.e. wire] is producible by the tool (Par. 0107); wherein the tool parts are two legs (see annotated figure below) connected to one another via a hinge [i.e. pin], the control wire being fixable to one of the legs [i.e. wire loaded in groove and clamps]; 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 (Par. 0107).
PNG
media_image2.png
292
330
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 a tool that has two tool parts configured to perform an angular movement relative to one another, wherein the kink in the proximal end section of the control wire is producible by the tool [Claim 9]; wherein the tool parts are 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], as taught by Rafiee. Ciervo discloses wire kinking is desired (Fig. 2), thus Rafiee’s tool would have provided Howell with a sufficient means for kinking the proximal end of the wire.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 04/08/26, with respect to claims 5-7 and 10-11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection and 35 USC § 112 of claims 5-7 and 10-11 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the combination of previously cited prior art references Howell and Ciervo does not teach or suggest the invention recited in the amended claims. Specifically, Ciervo discloses a form-fitting connection between a control wire and an actuating element but this connection is unlikely to be suitable for solving the problem of the present invention, because a permanent connection is established, such as by gluing (see column 4, lines 50-55 of Ciervo et al.), so that this connection would likely be impossible or very difficult to achieve during the ongoing use of the device. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Ciervo is a secondary reference that is only being relied upon to teach a traction means extends from the actuating element and is couplable to the control wire via a form-fitting connection, and wherein the form-fitting connection is a hook-eyelet-connection. Primary reference Howell divulges limitations relating to the control wire being separable form the control element and couplable for lithotripsy. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine Ciervo with Howell because doing so would provide a coupling means for the control wire and maintain the control wires in position when operating the tube (Col. 4, lines 30-33), as taught by Ciervo.
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 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 June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights