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 statement (IDS) submitted on 4/10/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, Brady is no longer relied upon to disclose the limitations of claim 1 and is thus no longer relied upon to teach or disclose any limitations specifically challenged in the submitted arguments.
Drawings
The drawings are not of sufficient quality to permit examination. Accordingly, replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to this Office action. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
Applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS to submit new drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.81. Extensions of time may be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133). Failure to timely submit replacement drawing sheets will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawings are not clear enough to provide accurate viewing of the claimed subject matter. For example, the Examiner cannot accurately determine where the “reinforcing element” (802), recited in claims 6 and 8, are positioned in regards to the other filaments making up the expandable basket and/or if the reinforcing member is an independent structure, or whether the reinforcing member is a portion of the body of the expandable structure due to the lack of clear detail showing the claimed feature. Additionally, the limitations further defining the “upper arms” and “lower arms”, recited in claims 2-10, are not clearly shown in the drawings due to the quality of the scanned images. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “upper and lower arms” recited in claims 2-10 must be properly shown and identified by a corresponding marker element or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 19 is 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 19 recites “The device of claim 19” in the preamble which designates claimed dependency from itself. As a result, none of the limitations of claim 19 have proper antecedent basis and are therefore rendered indefinite. For the purposes of examination, claim 19 is being interpreted to depend from claim 18 which provides proper antecedent basis for “the plane” being further modified by the limitations of the claim.
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) 1, 13, 16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchand (US 2022/0015798 A1) in view of Diamant (US 2017/0245873 A1) (previously of record).
Regarding claim 1, Marchand discloses:
A device for capturing material in a blood vessel (see Figs. 2-3; see also Para. [0006] and [0071]), the device comprising:
an elongate control member (inner shaft 200, see Figs. 3 and 7) having a proximal portion and a distal portion (see Figs. 3 and 7), the distal portion configured to be intravascularly positioned at a treatment site in a blood vessel lumen proximate an obstruction (see Para. [0006]-[0023] and [0176] mentioning wherein the device is configured to be positioned proximate a thrombus such that the thrombus enters mouth 414 of extraction device 202 positioned at the distal portion of the inner shaft; see also Figs. 23G-23H);
an expandable basket (extraction device 202 which comprises basket 208 and coring element 206, see Figs. 3 and 7; see also Para. [0095]-[0096] mentioning wherein the basket and coring element are expandable) coupled to the distal portion of the control member (see Figs. 3 and 7; see also Para. [0096]) with the control member extending longitudinally through the basket (see Fig. 7), the basket comprising a plurality of braided filaments (see Para. [0129] and [0176] mentioning wherein cylindrical portion 208 may be formed as a braided mesh) defining an interior cavity (see Figs. 4-5 and Para. [0174]-[0176] mentioning wherein a thrombus is configured to enter the extraction device via mouth 414 and thus a lumen is understood to be disposed therein to allow for capture of the thrombus);
wherein the basket has a closed distal end portion (see Figs. 3 and 7) and an opening (mouth 414, see Fig. 5) defined by at least a proximal edge of the basket (see Figs. 4-5 showing wherein two curved struts 410-A and 410-B form the mouth 414), the opening formed by a double-pointed oval shape (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 5 below showing wherein mouth 414 is formed as a double-pointed oval shape) and single-pointed half oval shape projecting at an angle from the double-pointed oval shape (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 5_Oval below illustrating wherein two struts extend distally from the curved struts (410-A/410-B) forming the boundaries of mouth 414; one strut extends from each of the curved struts which join together at a reconnection point at the bottom-side of the coring element to enclose the lumen defined therein; the resulting shape formed by these two identified struts would be a half-oval shape having a single point at the “reconnection point” at the bottom side of the coring element), the opening being in communication with the interior cavity (see Figs. 4-5); and
first and second legs (curved struts 410-A and 410-B, see Figs. 4-5) having respective proximal ends coupled to the distal portion of the control member at a connection (see Figs. 4-5 and 7; see also Para. [0105] mentioning wherein the curved struts connect to intermediate shaft 140 within which inner shaft 200 is disposed; see also Para. [0112] mentioning wherein the coring element can engage with all portions of the inner shaft and is thus understood to be connected thereto via at least an indirect connection through intermediate shaft 140) and distal ends at the proximal edge of the basket (see Fig. 5);
wherein the first and second legs are configured to position the basket within the blood vessel lumen independent of the path of the control member such that the proximal edge of the basket remains in contact with an inner surface of the blood vessel lumen when the basket is positioned around a curve (curved struts 410-A and 410-B exert a biasing force and provide greater lateral flexibility to the extraction device during navigation around curves within the blood vessel which would allow for a better seal against the vessel wall during navigation; see Para. [0105]).
PNG
media_image1.png
280
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 5
PNG
media_image2.png
360
930
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 5_Oval
However, while Marchand discloses wherein the coring element may be formed in a variety of shapes/sizes and from various materials (see Para. [0101]-[0102]), Marchand does not expressly disclose wherein each of the first and second legs are formed of bundled portions of the filaments.
In the same field of endeavor, namely clot removal devices, Diamant teaches a clot removal device (see Fig. 1B) comprising an elongate control member (140/120, see Fig. 1B); an expandable basket (filter 11, see Fig. 1B) attached to said elongate control member (see Fig. 1B) via a plurality of legs (branches 113, see Fig. 1B); wherein the legs are formed from bundled portions of filament used to form the expandable member (see Para. [0041]-[0044] and Fig. 1B).
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 composition 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 forming the curved struts of the coring element of Marchand by braiding the material used in the formation thereof as disclosed by Diamant. Since Marchand does not provide an express preferred method of forming the curved struts of the coring element, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the curved struts of Marchand to function equally well should they be formed by braiding a desired material as disclosed by Diamant since the formation method is disclosed to be a known method of formation for similar devices within the art. Since both the curved struts of Marchand and the legs Diamant are used to secure an open proximal end of a clot capture basket to the elongate guide body of the respective devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the resulting combination absent an express disclosure to the contrary not present in either Marchand or Diamant.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Marchand and Diamant disclose the invention of claim 1, Marchand further discloses wherein the filaments do not diverge away from the bundle along the legs (see Figs. 2-3 and 7; see also Marchand Fig. 53 showing wherein the material of the curved struts does not diverge away along the length of the curved struts).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Marchand and Diamant disclose the invention of claim 1, Marchand further discloses a proximal hub (portion of intermediate shaft 140 to which the proximal end of the coring element 206 is attached via ring 210, see Fig. 7; see also Para. [0906]) and a distal hub (distal end 218, see Fig. 7) positioned along the distal portion of the control member (see Fig. 7), wherein: the proximal ends of the first and second legs are coupled to the proximal hub (see Fig. 7; see also Para. [0096]); and the plurality of braided filaments are gathered and constrained at the distal hub to define the closed distal end portion (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Marchand and Diamant disclose the invention of claim 1, Marchand further discloses wherein the first leg, the second leg, and at least a portion of the proximal edge of the basket extend to define a plane (see Figs. 4-5 and 7).
Regarding claim 19 (see 112(b) rejection above), the combination of Marchand and Diamant disclose the invention of claim 18, Marchand further disclose wherein the plane extends at an angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the basket, and wherein the angle is between 30 degrees and 60 degrees (see Para. [0028] and [0106] mentioning wherein the opening mouth of the coring element is at an angle of between 30-45 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Marchand and Diamant disclose the invention of claim 1, Marchand further discloses wherein the double-pointed oval shape is planar (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 4 below designating a plane along which the mouth of the extraction device extends along).
PNG
media_image3.png
210
733
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 4
Claim(s) 2-11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchand (US 2022/0015798 A1) in view of Diamant (US 2017/0245873 A1) (previously of record), further in view of Brady (US 2016/0317168 A1) (previously of record).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Marchand and Diamant disclose all of the limitations of the invention of claim 1.
However, Marchand does not expressly disclose wherein the bundled filaments of the first and second legs branch at distal ends of the first and second legs into respective upper and lower arms, wherein each of the upper arms and each of the lower arms are formed of bundled filaments.
In the same field of endeavor, namely expandable basket devices configured for capturing material in a blood vessel, Brady teaches:
a device for capturing material in a blood vessel (clot retrieval device 2010, see Fig. 53; see also Abstract and Para. [0888]), the device comprising:
an elongate control member (tube element(s) 2019/2021, see Fig. 53)
an expandable basket (capture basked 2011, see Figs. 53 and 79A-79F) coupled to the distal portion of the control member (see Fig. 53);
first and second legs (struts 2025, see Fig. 53) having respective proximal ends coupled to the distal portion of the control member at a connection and distal ends at the proximal edge of the basket (see Fig. 53);
wherein the bundled filaments of the first and second legs branch at distal ends of the first and second legs into respective upper and lower arms (see Fig. 53 showing wherein each strut branches into respective lower and upper arms, forming two sets of parallel struts) which provide for a stronger engagement force while providing greater lateral flexibility (see Para. [0886]).
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 the curved struts (i.e., 410-A and 410-B) of Marchand to be formed as a pair of parallel struts as taught and suggested by Brady to, in this case, provide a stronger engagement force while providing greater lateral flexibility due to the additional structure/support provided by the pair of parallel strut members (see Brady Para. [0886]). As the curved struts of Marchand have been modified to be formed from braided material from the disclosure of Diamant, the resulting pair of parallel struts would also be formed from braided material.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Marchand, Diamant and Brady disclose the invention of claim 2, Marchand further discloses wherein the filaments branch distally away from the filament bundle of the respective upper and lower arms to form the sidewall of the basket (see Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Marchand, Diamant and Brady disclose the invention of claim 3, Marchand, as modified by Brady, further discloses wherein: the first leg splits at its distal end into a first upper arm and a first lower arm (see Brady Fig. 53 showing wherein each strut (2025) splits into two parallel strut portions having an upper strut and lower strut, as incorporated into the device of Marchand), the first upper arm and first lower arm defining a first prong (see Brady Fig. 53; one pair of parallel struts, as incorporated into the device of Marchand, may be defined as a “first prong”), and the second leg splits at its distal end into a second upper arm and a second lower arm, the second upper arm and second lower arm defining a second prong (see Brady Fig. 53).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Marchand, Diamant, and Brady discloses the invention of claim 4, Marchand, as modified by Brady, further discloses wherein the first and second upper arms converge along a circumferential direction towards one another as the first and second upper arms extend distally (see Brady Fig. 53), and wherein the distal ends of the first and second upper arms are spaced apart from one another along a circumferential direction by a gap (see Brady Fig. 53).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Marchand, Diamant and Brady disclose all of the limitations of the invention of claim 5.
However, the combination, as currently presented, does not expressly disclose wherein the basket includes a reinforcing element extending along the first and second upper arms, with the bundled filaments, and spanning the circumferential gap between the distal ends of the first and second upper arms.
However, Brady further teaches wherein an expandable basket includes a reinforcing element (hoop 2014, see Fig. 53), formed from a super elastic or shape memory alloy (see Para. [0889]) extending around the proximal opening of the expandable basket and along the first and second upper arms and spanning the circumferential gap between the distal ends of the first and second upper arms (see Fig. 53) which would provide additional strength to the opening of the expandable basket imparted by the additional material providing support strength thereto.
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 the device of Marchand to comprise a hoop, formed from a super elastic material or shape memory alloy, formed around the perimeter of the mouth of the extraction device as disclosed by Brady to, in this case, provide additional supporting structure around the proximal opening of the extraction device which would increase the strength and durability of the device.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Marchand, Diamant and Brady discloses the invention of claim 4, Marchand, as modified by Brady, further discloses wherein the first and second lower arms converge along a circumferential direction towards one another as the first and second lower arms extend distally (see Brady Fig. 53 showing wherein the lower struts of the pair of parallel struts, as incorporated into the device of Marchand, converge along the circumferential direction towards one another as the first and second lower arms extend distally), and wherein the distal ends of the first and second lower arms are spaced apart from one another along a circumferential direction by a gap (see Brady Fig. 53).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Marchand, Diamant and Brady disclose all of the limitations of the invention of claim 7.
However, the combination as currently presented does not expressly disclose wherein the basket includes a reinforcing element extending along the first and second lower arms, with the bundled filaments, and spanning the circumferential gap between the distal ends of the first and second lower arms.
However, Brady further teaches wherein an expandable basket includes a reinforcing element (hoop 2014, see Fig. 53), formed from a super elastic or shape memory alloy (see Para. [0889]) extending around the proximal opening of the expandable basket and along the first and second lower arms and spanning the circumferential gap between the distal ends of the first and second lower arms (see Fig. 53) which would provide additional strength to the opening of the expandable basket imparted by the additional material providing support strength thereto.
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 the device of Marchand to comprise a hoop, formed from a super elastic material or shape memory alloy, formed around the perimeter of the mouth of the extraction device as disclosed by Brady to, in this case, provide additional supporting structure around the proximal opening of the extraction device which would increase the strength and durability of the device.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Marchand, Diamant and Brady discloses the invention of claim 4, Marchand, as modified by Brady, further discloses wherein the first and second prongs are diametrically opposed (see Brady Fig. 53 showing wherein the two pairs of parallel struts, as incorporated into the device of Marchand, are diametrically opposed along the longitudinal central axis).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Marchand, Diamant and Brady disclose the invention of claim 4, Marchand further discloses wherein a sidewall of the basket has a first region comprising the first and second prongs and a second region extending distally from the first and second prongs (see Examiner’s Diagram of Marchand Fig. 7 below designating a “first region” and “second region” of the extractor device), and wherein the sidewall is circumferentially continuous along the second region, with the exception of the openings between the interwoven filaments (see Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image4.png
335
969
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Diagram of Marchand Fig. 7
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Marchand, Diamant and Brady disclose the invention of claim 10, Marchand further discloses wherein the first and second prongs have a first average pore size and the second region has a second average pore size less than the first average pore size (see Figs. 2-3 and 7 showing wherein the “first region” comprising the coring element 206 comprises a larger pore size than the “second region” comprising the cylindrical portion 208).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Marchand and Diamant disclose all of the limitations of the invention of claim 16.
However, Marchand does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of the proximal hub or the distal hub is rotationally free relative to the control member.
In the same field of endeavor, namely expandable basket devices configured for capturing material in a blood vessel, Brady teaches:
a device for capturing material in a blood vessel (see Fig. 6), the device comprising:
an elongate control member (guidewire 32, see Fig. 6);
an expandable basket (capture basked 31, see Fig. 6) coupled to the distal portion of the control member (see Fig. 6);
a proximal hub (proximal collar 33, see Fig. 6) positioned along the control member (see Fig. 6) and a distal hub positioned along the control member (distal collar 36, see Fig. 6);
wherein the expandable basket is coupled to both the proximal hub and distal hub (see Fig. 6);
wherein at least one of the proximal hub or distal hub is rotationally free relative to the control member (see Para. [0019] and [0795]) to allow for more accurate manipulation and placement of the basket device within a target vessel.
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 the device of Marchand to have either the intermediate shaft or distal end of the device, to which the extraction device is coupled, be rotatable relative to the inner shaft as disclosed by Brady to, in this case, allow the extraction device to be rotated, if desired, to provide better placement of the extraction device relative to a target occlusion.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchand (US 2022/0015798 A1) in view of Diamant (US 2017/0245873 A1) (previously of record), further in view of Brady (US 2016/0317168 A1) (previously of record), further in view of Dubrui (US 2014/0188127 A1) (previously of record).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Marchand, Diamant and Brady disclose all of the limitations of the invention of claim 10,.
However, none of the combination expressly mentions a “pic count” and thus does not expressly disclose wherein the first and second prongs have a first pic count and the second region has a second pic count greater than the first pic count.
In the same field of endeavor, namely vascular occlusion treatment devices, Dubrui teaches wherein an expandable capture basket (see Fig. 49) may comprise a distal portion (280, see Fig. 49) having a higher PIC count and a proximal portion (282, see Fig. 49) having a lower PIC count to allow the distal portion to buckle first as long as it can fully expand in the vessel; the higher the PIC count, the less the section will expand under axial compression, thereby limiting expansion of the capture basket to a desired amount (see Para. [0140]).
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 the PIC count of the extraction device of Marchand to comprise a higher PIC count in the second region as taught and suggested by Dubrui to, in this case, allow the distal portion of the capture basket to buckle first under compression (see Dubrui Para. [0140]).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchand (US 2022/0015798 A1) in view of Diamant (US 2017/0245873 A1) (previously of record), further in view of Shrivastava (US 2020/0113588 A1) (previously of record).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Marchand and Diamant disclose all of the limitations of the invention of claim 1, Marchand further discloses wherein the basket comprises a proximal structure (coring element 206, see Figs. 2-3 and 7) and a distal structure coupled to the proximal structure (cylindrical structure 208, see Figs. 2-3 and 7).
However, Marchand does not expressly disclose wherein the two structures are connected together by a circumferential joint.
In the same field of endeavor, namely vascular clot removal devices comprising an expandable basket, Shrivastava teaches wherein a clot capture basket (see Fig. 3A) comprising a proximal structure (315, see Fig. 3A) having a first port size (see Para. [0049]-[0050]) and a distal structure (305, see Fig. 3A) having a second pore size different from the first pore size (see Para. [0049]-[0050]), wherein the proximal and distal structures may be secured together by either an inter-woven braiding process or a welding process (see Para. [0050]).
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 attachment method 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 coring element and cylindrical structure be secured together by a welding process as disclosed by Shrivastava since Shrivastava discloses wherein attachment between different portions of a cot capture basket may be achieved by either welding or weaving without impacting the functionality of the device. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success that the device of Marchand would function equally well should the coring element and cylindrical structure be secured together by either welding or weaving since Shrivastava expressly discloses wherein the two methods are interchangeable. Since a weld would need to be circumferential to ensure securement, the resulting securement weld would constitute a circumferential joint.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Marchand, Diamant and Shrivastava disclose the invention of claim 14, Marchand further discloses wherein: the filaments are first filaments and the proximal structure is formed of the first filaments (see Figs. 2-5 and 7 showing wherein the coring element is formed from a plurality of filaments),and the distal structure is formed of a plurality of interwoven second filaments (see Figs. 2-3 and 7; see also Para. [0129] mentioning wherein the cylindrical portion is formed from interwoven branded filaments).
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 Reference Cited. Specifically, US 2006/0155305 A1 to Freudenthal, US 2006/0100662 A1 to Daniel, US 12465382 B1 to Merritt, US 2013/0197567 A1 to Brady, US 6544279 B1 to Hopkins, US 10292722 B2 to Brady and US 2022/0287817 A1 to Garrison all disclose vascular clot removal devices comprising an expandable scaffold element having an open proximal end secured to a guide shaft with one or more struts.
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 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
Prosecution Insights