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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 9, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “a distal region of the pusher” in line 2, although the line is understood by the Examiner to mean “the distal region of the pusher” as the “distal region of the pusher” was previously defined in claim 2, the Examiner suggests the line be amended to read “the distal region of the pusher” for the purpose of maintaining consistent language throughout the claims;
Claim 9 recites “of second implant segment” in line 3, however this is not grammatically correct as there is no article (a/an/the) before the noun, therefore the Examiner suggests the line be amended to read “of the second implant segment”;
Claim 21 recites “the embolic means” in line 5, although the line does not rise to the level of being indefinite, as the line is understood by the Examiner to mean “the proximal embolic means”, based on Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner suggests the line be amended to read “the proximal embolic means” for the purpose of maintaining consistent language throughout the claims;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 4 – 6 and 15 – 19 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.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "a second detachment configuration" renders the claim indefinite because the term “second” implies the existence of a “first” detachment configuration, however, claim 2, from which claim 4 depends, does not define a “first” detachment configuration; additionally, it is unclear if Applicant is intending for claim 4 to be dependent on claim 3 which does define a “first” detachment configuration or if Applicant is considering the term “second” to be purely nomenclature and therefore not denoting a number / the number of the detachment configuration(s) in claim 4. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will read the term “second” as nomenclature, such that the term “second” only implies the name of the claimed detached configuration.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "a third detachment configuration" renders the claim indefinite because the term “third” implies the existence of a “first” and a “second” detachment configuration, however, claim 2, from which claim 5 depends, does not define a “first” or a “second” detachment configuration; additionally, it is unclear if Applicant is intending for claim 5 to be dependent on claim 4 and for claim 4 to be dependent on claim 3 which do define a “second” and a “first” detachment configuration, respectively, or if Applicant is considering the term “third” to be purely nomenclature and therefore not denoting a number / the number of the detachment configuration(s) in claim 5. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will read the term “third” as nomenclature, such that the term “third” only implies the name of the claimed detached configuration.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "a fourth detachment configuration" renders the claim indefinite because the term “fourth” implies the existence of a “first”, a “second”, and a “third” detachment configuration, however, claim 2, from which claim 6 depends, does not define a “first”, a “second”, or a “third” detachment configuration; additionally, it is unclear if Applicant is intending for claim 6 to be dependent on claim 5 and for claim 5 to be dependent on claim 4 and for claim 4 to be dependent on claim 3 which do define a “third”, a “second”, and a “first” detachment configuration, respectively, or if Applicant is considering the term “fourth” to be purely nomenclature and therefore not denoting a number / the number of the detachment configuration(s) in claim 6. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will read the term “fourth” as nomenclature, such that the term “fourth” only implies the name of the claimed detached configuration.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "an implant segment of the plurality of implant segments" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant is intending to define an additional “implant segment” in the plurality of implant segments such that the plurality of implant segments comprises the first implant segment, the second implant segment, and now a third implant segment, or if Applicant is intending the phrase to mean “each of the implant segments of the plurality of implant segments”, wherein no additional implant segments are being defined. For the purpose of examination the Examiner will read the phrase to mean the latter.
Regarding claims 15 – 19, the phrase "the detachment segment" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant is intending for the “detachment segment” to mean each of the plurality of detachment segments or if Applicant is intending to narrow down the claims such that only one of the detachment segments in the plurality of detachment segments has the corresponding structure or corresponding function; if Applicant is intending the latter, it is further unclear which of the detachment segments in the plurality of detachment segments Applicant is intending to comprise the corresponding structure or corresponding function. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will read the claim such that “the detachment segment” means “each of the detachment segments of the plurality of segments” such that each of the detachment segments in the plurality of detachment segments comprise the corresponding structure and/or the corresponding function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 2, 3, 5 – 7, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bowman et al (US 2015/0173772 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Bowman discloses a catheter system (catheter system / microcatheter 22 with pusher 20) (abstract, paragraphs [0077 – 0082], [0094], and Figs. 9 – 16) and the comprising:
a pusher (pusher 20) (paragraph [0061] and Figs. 5-7,13-16);
a plurality of implant segments (coil segments 12) (paragraphs [0061], [0079], and Figs. 5-7, 9,13-16) comprising:
a first implant segment (proximal coil segment 12 closest to the pusher 20 – shown in Fig. 13) coupled to a distal region of the pusher in an attached configuration (Fig. 13); and
a second implant segment (distal coil segment 12 attached to the proximal coil segment 12 – shown in Fig. 13) coupled to the distal region of the pusher in the attached configuration (coupled via the first coil segment 12) and positioned distal to the first implant segment (Fig. 13); and
a plurality of detachment segments (detachable links 30) (paragraphs [0079 – 0083] and Figs. 9-11,13-16) comprising:
a first detachment segment (proximal most detachment link 30 – shown in Fig. 13) coupled to a proximal end of the first implant segment in the attached configuration (Fig. 13); and
a second detachment segment (distal most detachment link 30 – shown in Fig. 13) coupled to a distal end of the first implant segment and a proximal end of the second implant segment in the attached configuration (Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 3, Bowman discloses where in a first detachment configuration (configuration shown in Fig. 14), the second implant segment (distal coil segment 12) is detached from the pusher (pusher 20) and the first implant segment remains (proximal coil segment 12) coupled to the pusher (pusher 20) (Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 5, Bowman discloses where in a third detachment configuration (configuration shown in Fig. 16), the first and second implant segments (coil segments 12) are detached from the pusher (pusher 20) (Figs. 14 – 16), and the first implant segment is detached from the second implant segment (Figs. 14 – 16).
Regarding claim 7, Bowman discloses wherein activation of the first detachment segment (proximal link 30) detaches the first implant segment (proximal coil segment 12) from the pusher (pusher 20) (paragraph [0090] and Fig. 16), and wherein activation of the second detachment segment (distal link 30) detaches the second implant segment (distal coil segment 12) from the pusher (paragraph [0090] and Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 21, Bowman discloses a catheter system (catheter system / microcatheter 22 with pusher 20) (abstract, paragraphs [0077 – 0082], [0094], and Figs. 1 – 16) and the comprising:
a pushing means (pusher 20) (paragraph [0061] and Figs. 5-7,13-16);
a plurality of embolic means (coil segments 12) (paragraphs [0061], [0079], and Figs. 1, 5-7, 9,13-16), comprising a proximal embolic means (coil segment 12 closest to pusher 20 – shown in Fig. 13) coupled to a distal end of the pushing means in an attached configuration (Fig. 13); and
a detaching means (link 30) connected to a distal end of the [proximal] embolic means and a proximal end of another embolic means (coil segment 12 furthest from the pusher 20 – shown in Fig. 13) of the plurality of embolic means (paragraph [0079]), wherein in a detached configuration (configuration shown in Fig. 14), the another embolic means of the plurality of embolic means being detached from the catheter system (paragraph [0090] and Fig. 14).
Regarding claims 2 and 6, (alternate interpretation – changes italicized below) Bowman discloses a catheter system (catheter system / microcatheter 22 with pusher 20) (abstract, paragraphs [0061 – 0062] and Fig. 1 – 2) and the comprising:
a pusher (pusher 20) (paragraph [0061] and Figs. 1-2);
a plurality of implant segments (coil segments 12) (paragraphs [0061] and Fig. 1) comprising:
a first implant segment (proximal coil segment 12 closest to the pusher 20 – shown in Fig. 1) coupled to a distal region of the pusher in an attached configuration (Fig. 1); and
a second implant segment (middle coil segment 12 attached to the proximal coil segment 12 – shown in Fig. 1) coupled to the distal region of the pusher in the attached configuration (coupled via the first coil segment 12) and positioned distal to the first implant segment (Fig. 1); and
[claim 6] a third implant segment (distal most coil segment 12) coupled to a distal region of the pusher in the attached configuration (Fig. 1) and positioned distal to the second implant segment (the distal most coil segment 12 – shown in Fig. 1) (Fig. 1);
a plurality of detachment segments (detachable links 14) (paragraphs [0061 – 0062] and Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a first detachment segment (proximal most detachment link 14 – shown in Fig. 1) coupled to a proximal end of the first implant segment in the attached configuration (Fig. 1); and
a second detachment segment (middle detachment link 14 – shown in Fig. 1) coupled to a distal end of the first implant segment and a proximal end of the second implant segment in the attached configuration (Fig. 1); and
[claim 6] a third detachment segment (distal most detachment link 14) coupled to a distal end of the second implant segment and a proximal end of the third implant segment in the attached configuration (Fig. 1),
[claim 6] where in a fourth detachment configuration (configuration when all of the embolic coil segments are detached), the first, second, and third implant segments are detached from the pusher, and the first, second, and third implant segments are detached from one another (Examiner’s note: as stated in paragraphs [0061 – 0063] each of the first, second, and third embolic coils 12 are coupled via degradable links 14, and operator uses the detachment system to degrade each of the links; therefore, there is a configuration in which all of the embolic coils are detached from the pusher and from each other).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowman et al (US 2015/0173772 A1), as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Wallace et al (US 5,941,888).
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above, Bowman discloses the catheter system of claim 2. Additionally, Bowman discloses where in a second detachment configuration, the first and second implant segments are detached from the pusher (Figs. 14 – 16).
However, Bowman is silent regarding (i) where in the second detachment configuration, the first and second implant segments are detached from the pusher, and the first implant segment is coupled to the second implant segment.
As to the above, Wallace teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a catheter system (catheter 202) comprising a pusher (core wire 228), a plurality of implant segments (vaso-occlusive members 212) connected to the pusher (core wire 228) and to each other via a plurality of detachable segments (links 224) via an electrode 204 on the catheter (catheter 202) (abstract, col. 8 line 33 – col. 9 line 28, and Fig. 2); wherein in a detachment configuration multiple (i.e., a first and a second) implant segments (vaso-occlusive members 212) are detached from the pusher (core wire 228) while connection in between the multiple (i.e., first and second) implant segments (vaso-occlusive members 212) is maintained, for the purpose of treating a treatment site by including multiple linked implants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Bowman to incorporate a second detachment configuration, based on the teachings of Wallace, wherein multiple implant segments (i.e., the first and second implant segments) are attached together when detached from the pusher, for the purpose of treating a treatment site that requires multiple implants attached together.
Claims 8 – 10, 12 – 15, and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowman et al (US 2015/0173772 A1), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sharma et al (US 2016/0354140 A1).
Regarding claim 8, as discussed above, Bowman discloses the device of claim. Additionally, Bowman discloses a catheter (microcatheter 22) that includes a circuit (electrical wires – shown in Figs. 13 – 16) (paragraphs [0086 – 0087] and Figs. 9,13-16) (Examiner’s note: the attached wires and voltage source form a circuit); and wherein each detachment segment of the plurality of detachment segments (links 30) comprises a heater (heater 40) (paragraphs [0080 – 0082] and Figs. 10,11), and wherein to activate a predetermined detachment segment of the plurality of detachment segments, the circuit induces a current in a corresponding heater of the predetermined detachment segment (paragraphs [0088 – 0089]). Furthermore, the Examiner notes that Bowman states, in paragraph [0092], wherein another system can be utilized to energize the heater 40 of the link 30; therefore, Bowman contemplates multiple means of sending energy to the link 30 for detachment thereof such that system for energizing the link 30 is not critical to the functioning of the system.
However, Bowman is silent regarding wherein (i) the circuit is a resonant circuit.
As to the above, Sharma teaches a catheter system comprising a resonant circuit (which equates to the circuit of Bowman) comprising a capacitor and an induction coil and driven by an AC power source in order to heat an ablative agent (which is equated to the heater 40 of Bowman) (abstract and paragraphs [0021 – 0022]).
It should be understood that Bowman and Sharma are known references in the art that teach a catheter system comprising a means of delivering an electrical current to an adjacent object to induce heating of said object (abstract, paragraphs [0086 – 0087], and Figs. 9,13-16 – Bowman ; abstract and paragraphs [0021 – 0022] – Sharma); and the Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have substituted one heating circuit for another since, as stated above, Bowman places no criticality on the disclosed means of heating the link and contemplates other means, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and resulted in the modified catheter system of Bowman being able to function as intended to properly transfer energy to the heating coil of the link in order to detach the embolic coil segments from the catheter system. The Examiner notes the rejection above is based on KSR int’l Co. V. Teleflex inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), rational B, outlined in MPEP 2143. Lastly, it should be noted that the prior art makes obvious wherein the microcatheter 22 of Bowman is modified to comprise the resonant circuit.
Regarding claim 9, as stated above, it would have been obvious to modify the catheter system of Bowman with the resonant circuit of Sharma. Additionally, Bowman further discloses a tether (wire 50) spanning within the second detachment segment (Figs. 11 and 10), and connected to the distal end of the first implant segment and the proximal end of second implant segment (Examiner’s note: the tether 50 is indirectly attached to each of the claimed locations via the link body as shown in Figs. 10 and 11), wherein upon activation, the heater of the second detachment segment severs the tether causing a detachment of the second implant segment from the catheter system (paragraph [0089]).
Regarding claim 10, as stated above, it would have been obvious to modify the catheter system of Bowman with the resonant circuit of Sharma. Additionally, the combination further discloses wherein the resonant circuit is movable relative to the plurality of detachment segments (links 30) (Examiner’s note: as stated in the rejection of claim 8 above, the combination is such that the microcatheter 22 of Bowman comprises the resonant circuit of Sharma; and as discussed in paragraphs [0088] and [0090] the pusher / embolic coils are pushed to align the contacts of the circuit with the link 30. Therefore, microcatheter 22 and, thus, the resonant circuit move relative to the detachment segments).
Regarding claim 12, as stated above, it would have been obvious to modify the catheter system of Bowman with the resonant circuit of Sharma. Additionally, the combination further encompasses or, in the alternative, makes obvious further comprising:
an alternating current (AC) power source for driving the resonant circuit (paragraph [0087] – Bowman); and
a control system (control system) configured to operate the AC power source to drive the resonant circuit at a resonant frequency of the resonant circuit when in a driven state (Examiner’s note: the resonant circuit responds to its specific resonant frequency in order to operate. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the control system of Bowman and Sharma to drive the resonant circuit at its resonant frequency for the purpose of being able to operate the resonant circuit at its most efficient state and in order to perform the desired function).
Regarding claim 13, as stated above, it would have been obvious to modify the catheter system of Bowman with the resonant circuit of Sharma. Additionally, Bowman discloses wherein the control system is further configured to: calculate a resonant frequency of the resonant circuit (paragraph [0071]) (Examiner’s note: as stated in paragraph [0071] the control system measures the alignment which can be determined by measuring relative resonant frequencies, which means that the control system is capable of measuring the resonant frequency of the resonant circuit).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, as stated above, it would have been obvious to modify the catheter system of Bowman with the resonant circuit of Sharma. Additionally, Bowman discloses wherein the control system is further configured to: determine a relative position of the resonant circuit with respect to the plurality of detachment segments based on a resistance difference between the detachment segment and an implant segment of the plurality of implant segments (paragraph [0071]).
Regarding claim 17, as stated above, it would have been obvious to modify the catheter system of Bowman with the resonant circuit of Sharma. Additionally, Bowman discloses wherein the control system is further configured to: send an indication (a light/sound cue) indicating that the detachment segment is aligned with the resonant circuit (paragraph [0088]).
Regarding claim 18, as stated above, it would have been obvious to modify the catheter system of Bowman with the resonant circuit of Sharma. Additionally, the combination teaches wherein an inner surface of a portion of the catheter forming the resonant circuit (resonant circuit of Sharma) comprises: a plurality of projections (contacts 54 and 52 – Bowman) contacting the pusher (indirectly contacting) and configured to read a parameter indicating the relative position of the resonant circuit with respect to the detachment segment (paragraph [0071] – Bowman).
Regarding claim 19, as stated above, it would have been obvious to modify the catheter system of Bowman with the resonant circuit of Sharma. Additionally, the combination teaches wherein the parameter indicating the relative position of the resonant circuit (resonant circuit of Sharma) with respect to the detachment segment corresponds to measuring a resistance (paragraph [0071] – Bowman).
Regarding claim 20, Bowman discloses a catheter system (catheter system / microcatheter 22 with pusher 20) (abstract, paragraphs [0077 – 0082], [0094], and Figs. 9 – 16) comprising:
a catheter (microcatheter 22) that includes a circuit (electrical wires – shown in Figs. 13 – 16) (paragraphs [0086 – 0087] and Figs. 9,13-16) (Examiner’s note: the attached wires and voltage source form a circuit);
a heater (heater 40) (paragraphs [0080 – 0082] and Figs. 10,11); and
a plurality of implant segments (coil segments 12) (paragraphs [0061], [0079], and Figs. 1, 5-7, 9,13-16), comprising a proximal implant segment (coil segment 12 closet to pusher 20 – shown in Fig. 13) and a distal implant segment (coil segment 12 furthest from the pusher 20 – shown in Fig. 13), wherein in an attached configuration, the proximal implant segment is coupled to a proximal end of the heater (heater 40) and the distal implant segment is coupled to a distal end of the heater (heater 40) (Figs. 10 and 11) (Examiner’s note: as shown in Fig. 11 the heater 40 is within link 30; and as shown in Fig. 10 the implant segments are coupled as claimed to the link 30 and thus the heater 40),
wherein the circuit is movable relative to the heater (Examiner’s note: the microcatheter 22 of Bowman comprises the circuit; and as discussed in paragraphs [0088] and [0090] the pusher / embolic coils are pushed to align the contacts and the circuit with the link 30. Therefore, microcatheter 22 and, thus, the circuit move relative to the detachment segments), and
wherein upon activation, the circuit induces a current in the heater (heater 40) such that the distal implant segment detaches from the catheter system (paragraphs [0087 – 0089]).
However, Bowman is silent regarding wherein (i) the circuit is a resonant circuit.
As to the above, Sharma teaches a catheter system comprising a resonant circuit (which equates to the circuit of Bowman) comprising a capacitor and an induction coil and driven by an AC power source in order to heat an ablative agent (which is equated to the heater 40 of Bowman) (abstract and paragraphs [0021 – 0022]).
It should be understood that Bowman and Sharma are known references in the art that teach a catheter system comprising a means of delivering an electrical current to an adjacent object to induce heating of said object (abstract, paragraphs [0086 – 0087], and Figs. 9,13-16 – Bowman ; abstract and paragraphs [0021 – 0022] – Sharma); and the Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have substituted one heating circuit for another since, as stated above, Bowman places no criticality on the disclosed means of heating the link and contemplates other means, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and resulted in the modified catheter system of Bowman being able to function as intended to properly transfer energy to the heating coil of the link in order to detach the embolic coil segments from the catheter system. The Examiner notes the rejection above is based on KSR int’l Co. V. Teleflex inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), rational B, outlined in MPEP 2143. Lastly, it should be noted that the prior art makes obvious wherein the microcatheter 22 of Bowman is modified to comprise the resonant circuit.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowman et al (US 2015/0173772 A1) in view of Sharma et al (US 2016/0354140 A1), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Masahiro (JP 2004/290380 A) (attached translated PDF cited to by Examiner).
Regarding claim 16, as discussed above, the combination of Bowman and Sharma teach the catheter system of claim 14. Additionally, Bowman, in paragraph [0071], contemplates wherein the control system determines the relative position of the resonant circuit and the detachment link.
However, the combination is silent regarding (i) wherein the relative position of the resonant circuit with respect to the plurality of detachment segments segment is determined based on detecting a magnetic pull on the catheter caused by a magnetic element within the detachment segment.
As to the above, Masahiro teaches a medical device system comprising a catheter (sheath 25; which equates to the microcatheter 22 of Bowman) including magnets (which is equated to the resonant circuit of Sharma on the microcatheter of Bowman), an insertion portion 2 with Hall element 19 (which equates to the pusher and embolic coils of Bowman with the links 30 of Bowman), and a control system (determination circuit 21), wherein the control system is configured to determine a relative position of the insertion portion 2 at the Hall element 19 (which equates to the links 30) by detecting a magnetic pull on the catheter (sheath 25) caused by a magnetic element (Hall element 19) (paragraphs [0048 – 0049] and Fig. 1).
It should be understood that Bowman and Sharma are known references in the art that teach a catheter system and means of determining the relative position of an inner member relative to an outer member (abstract, paragraphs [0086 – 0087], and Figs. 9,13-16 – Bowman ; paragraphs [0048 – 0049] and Fig. 1 – Masahiro); and the Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have substituted one means for determining the relative location of an inner member relative to an outer member for another since, as stated above, Bowman places no criticality on the disclosed means of detecting the relative position of the circuit and the link and contemplates other means, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and resulted in the modified catheter system of Bowman being able to function as intended to properly determining / identifying the location of the resonant circuit and the link such that resonant circuit can detach the embolic coil via the heating of the link as intended. The Examiner notes the rejection above is based on KSR int’l Co. V. Teleflex inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), rational B, outlined in MPEP 2143. Lastly, it should be noted that the prior art makes obvious wherein the resonant circuit would comprise a magnetic source and the link 30 would comprise a magnetic element and the control system of Bowman is configured to detect the magnetic pull between the resonant circuit magnet and the magnetic element in the link.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Eder et al (US 2002/0072791 A1), Aporta et al (US 2013/0138198 A1), and Palermo (US 5,312,415) teach multiple implants linked together by a detachable means.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Restaino whose telephone number is (571)272-4748. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at 571-272-7134. 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.
/Andrew Restaino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771