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
In light of Applicant’s amendment, claim(s) 1, 10, 12, 17-18 is/are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
The rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to claim(s) 10 is/are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 12, and 17 under U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the amended limitations “a stall stop mechanism adapted to longitudinally translate the drive assembly relative to the housing in a direction opposite a direction of ablation” in claim 1, “a first movement mechanism adapted to longitudinally translate the drive assembly relative to the housing in a distal direction when the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of retrograde ablation; and a second movement mechanism adapted to longitudinally translate the drive assembly in a proximal direction relative to the housing” in claim 12 and 17 overcome the previous rejections as written. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sahadevan in view of Heitzmann and Wagner.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 10, 12-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahadevan et al. (US 20190201052 A1) (previously of record) in view of Heitzmann et al. (US 20020143350 A1) and Wagner et al. (US 5135483 A) (previously of record).
Regarding claim 1, Sahadevan discloses an atherectomy system (10) (Figure 1), comprising:
a housing (26) (Figure 1; Paragraph 0070);
a drive assembly (50) adapted to translate relative to the housing (Paragraph 0077);
a knob (23) extending from the drive assembly such that translating the knob results in the drive assembly translating relative to the housing (Figure 1; Paragraph 0062; 0077) (the knob assembly 23 may be configured to translate (e.g., longitudinally translate) to adjust an axial position of the drive mechanism and result in movement (e.g., movement along a central axis) of the drive mechanism 50 in response to movement (e.g., longitudinal movement) of the knob assembly 23.); and
a sensor (position sensor) adapted to detect a current position of the knob relative to the housing and output a signal representative of the current position of the knob (Paragraph 0058; 0077) (Paragraph 0077 discloses a position sensor configured to optically sense a position of the drive mechanism and later Paragraph 0077 discloses the knob assembly 23 may be coupled to the drive mechanism 50 in a suitable manner that facilitates movement of the drive mechanism 50 in response to movement of the knob assembly 23, thus the sensor senses the position of the knob since it is coupled with the drive mechanism.);
a controller (14) (Paragraph 0055; 0058).
Sahadevan fails to explicitly disclose a controller adapted to utilize the signal representative of the current position of the knob to ascertain whether the drive assembly is moving longitudinally in a direction indicative of anterograde ablation or a direction indicative of retrograde ablation; a stall stop mechanism adapted to longitudinally translate the drive assembly relative to the housing in a direction opposite a direction of ablation when a stall is determined to be imminent; wherein the controller is further adapted to determine when a stall is imminent and actuate the stall stop mechanism in an appropriate longitudinal direction when a stall is imminent.
However, Heitzmann is directed to an atherectomy system and teaches a stall stop mechanism (reverse switch) adapted to longitudinally translate the drive assembly relative to the housing in a direction opposite a direction of ablation when a stall is determined to be imminent (“For instance, the progression rate of the instrument may be reduced or stopped or the instrument may be backed from the trouble location using the reverse switch or otherwise.) (Paragraph 0122; 0124); wherein the controller (134) is further adapted to determine when a stall is imminent and actuate the stall stop mechanism in an appropriate longitudinal direction when a stall is imminent (“the device may make automatic adjustments to the motor speed relative to the sensed load utilizing methods”) (Paragraph 0124).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Sahadevan such that a stall stop mechanism adapted to longitudinally translate the drive assembly relative to the housing in a direction opposite a direction of ablation when a stall is determined to be imminent; wherein the controller is further adapted to determine when a stall is imminent and actuate the stall stop mechanism in an appropriate longitudinal direction when a stall is imminent, as taught by Heitzmann, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to atherectomy devices. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sahadevan with the teachings of Heitzmann by incorporating a stall stop mechanism adapted to longitudinally translate the drive assembly relative to the housing in a direction opposite a direction of ablation when a stall is determined to be imminent; wherein the controller is further adapted to determine when a stall is imminent and actuate the stall stop mechanism in an appropriate longitudinal direction when a stall is imminent in order to reverse out of jams or potential jams when necessary (Heitzmann Paragraph 0122).
Further, Wagner is directed to an atherectomy device and teaches a controller (100) adapted to utilize the signal representative of the current position of the drive assembly (176) to ascertain whether the drive assembly is moving longitudinally in a direction indicative of anterograde ablation or a direction indicative of retrograde ablation (Col 12 line 47-Col 13, line 6). When combined with Sahadevan, the position of the drive assembly would indicate the position of the knob. Further, the controller of Sahadevan controls features of the drive mechanism thus would receive signals from the position sensor in order to be able to do so, such as the location and direction of movement.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Sahadevan and Heitzmann such that a controller adapted to utilize the signal representative of the current position of the knob to ascertain whether the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of anterograde ablation or a direction indicative of retrograde ablation, as taught by Wagner, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to atherectomy systems. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sahadevan and Heitzmann with the teachings of Wagner by incorporating a controller adapted to utilize the signal representative of the current position of the knob to ascertain whether the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of anterograde ablation or a direction indicative of retrograde ablation in order to ensure providing adequate signals for the operation of the device (Wagner Col 15 line 55-67).
Regarding claim 2, Sahadevan further discloses a driveshaft (18) operably coupled with the drive assembly, the driveshaft translating relative to the housing as the drive assembly translates relative to the housing (Figure 1; Paragraph 0044; 0046); and an atherectomy burr (20) operably coupled with the driveshaft (Figure 1; Paragraph 0043; 0052).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sahadevan and Heitzmann further teaches wherein the controller is further adapted to continue rotating the drive shaft when the stall stop mechanism is actuated (Heitzmann Paragraph 0122; 0124) (the drive shaft rotates as it reverses, therefore continues to rotate).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sahadevan, Heitzmann, and Wagenr teaches the atherectomy system of claim 1 and Heitzmann further teaches wherein the stall stop mechanism comprises:
a first movement mechanism (reduction of speed and/or selectively reversible tip rotation) adapted to longitudinally translate the drive assembly in a distal direction when the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of retrograde ablation (Paragraph 0124; 0128); and
a second movement mechanism (reverse switch) adapted to longitudinally translate the drive assembly in a proximal direction when the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of anterograde ablation (Paragraph 0122).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sahadevan and Wagner further discloses wherein the drive assembly is determined to be moving in a direction indicative of anterograde ablation when the most recent user-initiated movement of the knob is in the direction of anterograde ablation (when the position of the knob is traveling in an anterograde direction, the corresponding action would be anterograde ablation) (Paragraph 0058; 0077; Wagner Col 15, line 55-67).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sahadevan and Wagner further discloses wherein the drive assembly is determined to be moving in a direction indicative of retrograde ablation when the most recent user-initiated movement of the knob is in the direction of retrograde ablation (when the position of the knob is traveling in the retrograde direction, the signal would be indicative of retrograde ablation) (Paragraph 0058; 0077; Wagner Col 15, line 55-67).
Regarding claim 12, Sahadevan discloses an atherectomy system, comprising:
a housing (26) (Figure 1; Paragraph 0070);
a drive assembly (50) adapted to translate relative to the housing (Paragraph 0077);
a knob (23) extending from the drive assembly (Figure 1; Paragraph 0062; 0077) (the knob assembly 23 may be configured to translate (e.g., longitudinally translate) to adjust an axial position of the drive mechanism and result in movement (e.g., movement along a central axis) of the drive mechanism 50 in response to movement (e.g., longitudinal movement) of the knob assembly 23.); and
a controller (14) (Paragraph 0055; 0058).
Sahadevan fails to explicitly disclose a first movement mechanism adapted to longitudinally translate the drive assembly in a distal direction relative to the housing when the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of retrograde ablation; and a second movement mechanism adapted to longitudinally translate the drive assembly in a proximal direction relative to the housing when the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of anterograde ablation; a controller adapted to utilize the signal representative of the current position of the knob to ascertain whether the drive assembly is longitudinally moving in a direction indicative of anterograde ablation or a direction indicative of retrograde ablation; wherein the controller is further adapted to actuate either the first movement mechanism or the second movement mechanism when a stall is imminent.
However, Heitzmann teaches a first movement mechanism (reduction of speed and/or selectively reversible tip rotation) adapted to longitudinally translating the drive assembly in a distal direction relative to the housing when the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of retrograde ablation (slowing down the motor or reversing the tip without withdrawing) (Paragraph 0122; 0124; 0128); and a second movement mechanism (reverse switch) adapted to longitudinally translate the drive assembly in a proximal direction relative to the housing when the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of anterograde ablation (Paragraph 0122; 0124).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Sahadevan to include longitudinally translating the drive assembly in a distal direction relative to the housing when the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of retrograde ablation and a second movement mechanism adapted to longitudinally translate the drive assembly in a proximal direction relative to the housing when the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of anterograde ablation, as taught by Heitzmann, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to atherectomy devices. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sahadevan with the teachings of Heitzmann by incorporating longitudinally translating the drive assembly in a distal direction relative to the housing when the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of retrograde ablation and a second movement mechanism adapted to longitudinally translate the drive assembly in a proximal direction relative to the housing when the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of anterograde ablation in order to reverse out of jams or dislodge jammed material (Heitzmann Paragraph 0122; 0128).
Further, Wagner is directed to an atherectomy device and teaches a controller (100) adapted to utilize the signal representative of the current position of the drive assembly (176) to ascertain whether the drive assembly is longitudinally moving in a direction indicative of anterograde ablation or a direction indicative of retrograde ablation (Col 12 line 47-Col 13, line 6). When combined with Sahadevan, the position of the drive assembly would indicate the position of the knob. Further, the controller of Sahadevan controls features of the drive mechanism thus would receive signals from the position sensor in order to be able to do so, such as the location and direction of movement.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Sahadevan and Heitzmann such that a controller adapted to utilize the signal representative of the current position of the knob to ascertain whether the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of anterograde ablation or a direction indicative of retrograde ablation, as taught by Wagner, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to atherectomy systems. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sahadevan and Heitzmann with the teachings of Wagner by incorporating a controller adapted to utilize the signal representative of the current position of the knob to ascertain whether the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of anterograde ablation or a direction indicative of retrograde ablation in order to ensure providing adequate signals for the operation of the device (Wagner Col 15 line 55-67).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Sahadevan and Heitzmann teaches the atherectomy system of claim 12, and Heitzmann further teaches wherein, when a stall is imminent, the controller is further adapted to actuate the first movement mechanism when the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of retrograde ablation (Paragraph 0128).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Sahadevan and Heitzmann teaches the atherectomy system of claim 12, and Heitzmann further teaches wherein, when a stall is imminent, the controller is further adapted to actuate the second movement mechanism when the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of anterograde ablation (Paragraph 0122; 0124).
Regarding claim 15, Sahadevan further discloses a sensor (position sensor) adapted to detect a current position of the knob relative to the housing (Paragraph 0058; 0077) (Paragraph 0077 discloses a position sensor configured to optically sense a position of the drive mechanism and later Paragraph 0077 discloses the knob assembly 23 may be coupled to the drive mechanism 50 in a suitable manner that facilitates movement of the drive mechanism 50 in response to movement of the knob assembly 23, thus the sensor senses the position of the knob since it is coupled with the drive mechanism.).
Regarding claim 17, Sahadevan discloses an atherectomy system, comprising:
a housing (26) (Figure 1; Paragraph 0070);
a drive assembly (50) adapted to translate relative to the housing (Paragraph 0077);
a knob (23) extending from the drive assembly (Figure 1; Paragraph 0062; 0077) (the knob assembly 23 may be configured to translate (e.g., longitudinally translate) to adjust an axial position of the drive mechanism and result in movement (e.g., movement along a central axis) of the drive mechanism 50 in response to movement (e.g., longitudinal movement) of the knob assembly 23.);
a sensor (position sensor) adapted to detect a current position of the knob relative to the housing (Paragraph 0058; 0077) (Paragraph 0077 discloses a position sensor configured to optically sense a position of the drive mechanism and later Paragraph 0077 discloses the knob assembly 23 may be coupled to the drive mechanism 50 in a suitable manner that facilitates movement of the drive mechanism 50 in response to movement of the knob assembly 23, thus the sensor senses the position of the knob since it is coupled with the drive mechanism.); and
a controller (14) (Paragraph 0055; 0058).
Sahadevan fails to explicitly disclose a first movement mechanism adapted to longitudinally translate the drive assembly in a distal direction relative to the housing when the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of retrograde ablation; and a second movement mechanism adapted to longitudinally translate the drive assembly in a proximal direction relative to the housing when the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of anterograde ablation; a controller adapted to utilize the signal representative of the current position of the knob to ascertain whether the drive assembly is longitudinally moving in a direction indicative of anterograde ablation or a direction indicative of retrograde ablation; wherein the controller is further adapted to actuate either the first movement mechanism or the second movement mechanism when a stall is imminent.
However, Heitzmann teaches a first movement mechanism (reduction of speed and/or selectively reversible tip rotation) adapted to longitudinally translating the drive assembly in a distal direction relative to the housing when the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of retrograde ablation (slowing down the motor or reversing the tip without withdrawing) (Paragraph 0122; 0124; 0128); and a second movement mechanism (reverse switch) adapted to longitudinally translate the drive assembly in a proximal direction relative to the housing when the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of anterograde ablation (Paragraph 0122; 0124).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Sahadevan to include a first movement mechanism adapted to longitudinally translate the drive assembly in a distal direction relative to the housing when the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of retrograde ablation and a second movement mechanism adapted to longitudinally translate the drive assembly in a proximal direction relative to the housing when the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of anterograde ablation, as taught by Heitzmann, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to atherectomy devices. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sahadevan with the teachings of Heitzmann by incorporating a first movement mechanism adapted to longitudinally translate the drive assembly in a distal direction relative to the housing when the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of retrograde ablation and a second movement mechanism adapted to longitudinally translate the drive assembly in a proximal direction relative to the housing when the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of anterograde ablation in order to reverse out of jams or dislodge jammed material (Heitzmann Paragraph 0122; 0128).
Furthermore, Wagner is directed to an atherectomy device and teaches a controller (100) adapted to utilize the signal representative of the current position of the drive assembly (176) to ascertain whether the drive assembly is longitudinally moving in a direction indicative of anterograde ablation or a direction indicative of retrograde ablation (Col 12 line 47-Col 13, line 6). When combined with Sahadevan, the position of the drive assembly would indicate the position of the knob. Further, the controller of Sahadevan controls features of the drive mechanism thus would receive signals from the position sensor in order to be able to do so, such as the location and direction of movement.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Sahadevan and Heitzmann such that a controller adapted to utilize the signal representative of the current position of the knob to ascertain whether the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of anterograde ablation or a direction indicative of retrograde ablation, as taught by Wagner, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to atherectomy systems. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sahadevan and Heitzmann with the teachings of Wagner by incorporating a controller adapted to utilize the signal representative of the current position of the knob to ascertain whether the drive assembly is moving in a direction indicative of anterograde ablation or a direction indicative of retrograde ablation in order to ensure providing adequate signals for the operation of the device (Wagner Col 15 line 55-67).
Regarding claim 18, Sahadevan further discloses a driveshaft (18) operably coupled with the drive assembly, the driveshaft translating relative to the housing as the drive assembly translates relative to the housing (Figure 1; Paragraph 0044; 0046); and an atherectomy burr (20) operably coupled with the driveshaft (Figure 1; Paragraph 0043; 0052).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Sahadevan and Heitzmann teaches the atherectomy system of claim 17, and Heitzmann further teaches wherein the controller is further adapted to continue rotating the drive shaft even after an imminent stall is detected (Paragraph 0122; 0128).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Sahadevan, Heitzmann and Wagner teaches the atherectomy system of claim 17, and Heitzmann further teaches wherein the first movement mechanism and the second movement mechanism are each adapted to override any user input to the knob (since the system can make automatic adjustments, it is seen as being fully capable of overriding user input to the knob) (Paragraph 0124).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahadevan in view of Heitzmann and Wagner as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Wulfman et al. (US 20040006358 A1) (previously of record).
Regarding claim 5, Sahadevan as modified by Heitzmann and Wagner teaches the atherectomy system of claim 4, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein one or both of the first movement mechanism and the second movement mechanism comprises an electric solenoid.
However, Wulfman is directed to a surgical cutting instrument and teaches using a solenoid-activated brake that is automatically actuated to brake during activation of the cutter assembly motor drive (Paragraph 0050).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Sahadevan as modified by Heitzmann and Wagner such that one or both of the first movement mechanism and the second movement mechanism comprises an electric solenoid, as taught by Wulfman, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to surgical cutting instruments. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sahadevan as modified by Heitzmann and Wagner with the teachings of Wulfman by incorporating one or both of the first movement mechanism and the second movement mechanism comprises an electric solenoid in order to electrically control the motor to prevent unwanted movement of the device (Wulfman Paragraph 0054).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahadevan in view of Heitzmann and Wagner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hilse (US 20200397464 A1) (previously of record).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sahadevan, Heitzmann and Wagner teaches the atherectomy system of claim 4, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein one or both of the first movement mechanism and the second movement mechanism comprise a spring.
Hilse is directed to an atherectomy system and further teaches wherein the first movement mechanism comprise a spring (Paragraph 0051).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Sahadevan, Heitzmann and Wagner such that the first movement mechanism comprise a spring, as taught by Hilse, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to atherectomy systems. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sahadevan, Heitzmann and Wagner with the teachings of Hilse by incorporating wherein the first movement mechanism comprise a spring in order to allow for controlled rotation of the device (Hilse Paragraph 0051).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahadevan in view of Heitzmann and Wagner and further in view of To et al. (US 20090018565 A1) (previously of record).
Regarding claim 9, Sahadevan as modified by Heitzmann and Wagner discloses the atherectomy system of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the knob provides feedback to the user as the user moves the knob back and forth relative to the housing, and the sensor is further adapted to detect the current position of the knob relative to the housing without causing a noticeable change to the feedback provided by the knob.
However, To is directed to an atherectomy system and teaches providing tactile feedback to the user as the user moves the knob (202) back and forth relative to the housing (200) (Figure 29A; Paragraph 0270). Further, there is no evidence the feedback would cause a noticeable change to the detection of the sensor position, thus, as a result of the modification, the combination teaches the sensor of Sahadevan is further adapted to detect the current position of the knob relative to the housing without causing a noticeable change to the feedback provided by the knob.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Sahadevan as modified by Heitzmann and Wagner to include providing tactile feedback to the user as the user moves the knob back and forth relative to the housing, as taught by To, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to atherectomy devices. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sahadevan as modified by Heitzmann and Wagner with the teachings of To by incorporating providing tactile feedback to the user as the user moves the knob back and forth relative to the housing in order to provide instant feedback to the user about the control of the knob and prevent moving the knob too far.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahadevan in view of Heitzmann and Wagner and further in view of Ross et al. (US 20110062211 A1) (previously of record) and Fan et al. (CN 111416035 A) (in text citations correspond with attached Espacenet translation) (previously of record).
Regarding claim 11, Sahadevan as modified by Heitzmann and Wagner discloses the atherectomy system of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sensor comprises: a first magnet disposed proximate the knob so that the first magnet moves as the control knob moves; a variable resistance strip disposed proximate the housing; and a second magnet trapped within the variable resistance strip and movable relative to the variable resistance strip in response to movement of the first magnet; wherein movement of the second magnet relative to the variable resistance strip causes the variable resistance strip to output a variable voltage representative of a current position of the knob.
However, Ross is directed to a surgical instrument and teaches a Hall effect sensor (276), which is a magnetic sensor that comprises a first magnet (278) disposed proximate the knob (176) so that the first magnet moves as the control knob moves (Paragraph 0045).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Sahadevan such that the sensor comprises a magnetic sensor with a first magnet disposed proximate the knob so that the first magnet moves as the control knob moves, as taught by Ross, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to surgical instruments. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sahadevan with the teachings of Ross by incorporating wherein the sensor comprises a magnetic sensor with a first magnet disposed proximate the knob so that the first magnet moves as the control knob moves as a simple substitution as magnetic sensors, and specifically hall effect sensors are well known as position sensors in the art. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., 962 F.3d 1373, 1379, 2020 USPQ2d 10706 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). "[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Further, Fan is directed to a sensor device and teaches it is known for a Hall effect sensor to be provided with a variable resistance strip (13) adapted to output a variable voltage in response to movement of the magnet (Paragraph 0030; 0038; 0058); wherein the magnet comprises a first magnet (Paragraph 0045), and Fan further teaches wherein the variable resistance strip includes an entrapped second magnet (TiOx, HfOx, TaOx) that moves within the variable resistance strip in accordance with movement of the first magnet (the cited materials act as magnets in hall effect sensors even if they don't typically have magnetic properties, thus are considered as entrapped magnets.) (Paragraph 0004; 0051); and wherein the variable resistance strip outputs the variable voltage as a result of movement of the entrapped second magnet (the cited materials act as magnets in hall effect sensors even if they don't typically have magnetic properties, thus are considered as entrapped magnets. Since the material of the resistance layer is magnetic and results in a variable voltage, the magnet's movement results in a variable voltage.) (Paragraph 0004; 0051; 0076).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Sahadevan as modified by Ross such that a variable resistance strip adapted to output a variable voltage in response to movement of the magnet, as taught by Fan, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to sensing devices. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sahadevan as modified by Ross with the teachings of Fan by incorporating a variable resistance strip adapted to output a variable voltage in response to movement of the magnet, which is part of the hall effect sensor, as the combination of Sahadevan as modified by Heitzmann and Ross is silent to the internal structure of the hall effect sensor.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahadevan in view of Heitzmann and Wagner as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ross.
Regarding claim 16, Sahadevan as modified by Heitzmann and Wagner teaches the atherectomy system of claim 15, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sensor comprises a magnetic sensor.
However, Ross is directed to a surgical instrument and teaches a Hall effect sensor (276), which is a magnetic sensor (Paragraph 0045).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Sahadevan as modified by Heitzmann and Wagner such that the sensor comprises a magnetic sensor, as taught by Ross, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to surgical instruments. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sahadevan as modified by Heitzmann and Wagner with the teachings of Ross by incorporating wherein the sensor comprises a magnetic sensor as a simple substitution, as magnetic sensors, and specifically hall effect sensors are well known position sensors in the art. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., 962 F.3d 1373, 1379, 2020 USPQ2d 10706 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). "[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
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 ZEHRA JAFFRI whose telephone number is (571)272-7738. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM-5:30 PM.
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 (571) 272-4695. 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.
/Z.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/SHAUN L DAVID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
