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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a tissue encroachment prevention assembly” (which can be read as “an assembly for preventing tissue encroachment”) in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (PP [0011]: “the tissue encroachment prevention assembly comprising at least one of a cage-like structure”).
The limitation “a means for preventing the blood vessel from being drawn into the aspiration lumen” in claim 8 is also being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in this manner.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 11-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenson et al. (US PGPub 2022/0387064 A1) in view of Kerin et al. (US Patent No. 5,873,815).
With respect to claim 1, Jenson et al. discloses an aspiration catheter (10 in Fig. 1) comprising:
an elongate shaft (12) configured for placement within a blood vessel (PP [0004]);
a supply lumen (22) and an aspiration lumen (18) each extending along an interior of the shaft (12), the supply lumen (22) having a proximal end and a distal end (PP [0040]: “A high pressure lumen 22 may extend through the distal region 14. The high pressure lumen 22 may terminate at a distal opening 24”), and the aspiration lumen (18) having a proximal end and a distal opening (PP [0040]: “a low pressure or evacuation lumen 18 extends through the distal region 12 and may, as shown, extend to the distal end 14. The evacuation lumen 18 may terminate at a distal opening 20”);
an orifice (24) near the distal end of the supply lumen (22), the orifice (24) being configured to allow injection of pressurized fluid into the aspiration lumen (18) at or near the distal end of the aspiration lumen (18) when the pressurized fluid is pumped through the supply lumen (22, see arrows of fluid leaving supply lumen 22 via orifice 24 and entering the aspiration lumen 18 for removal).
However, Jenson et al. fails to disclose a tissue encroachment prevention assembly for preventing the blood vessel from being drawn into the aspiration lumen and into close proximity to the orifice of the supply lumen during aspiration.
In the related field of access catheters (abstract) for navigating the vasculature (col. 6, lines 66-67: “The present invention will have applications for imaging of the vasculature (particularly of the coronary arteries)”), which is pertinent because this field is also concerned with access and visualization into blood vessels for completing a surgical procedure, Kerin et al. teaches a catheter (200 in Fig. 13) comprising a tissue encroachment prevention assembly (208 in Fig. 13D) which prevents the blood vessel from pressing too closely against the distal end of the catheter (col. 12, lines 65- end and col. 13 lines 1-2: “The cage also flexes resiliently to accommodate bends in the lumenal axis. Even when flexed, however, the radially protruding flared portion 230 prevents the lumenal wall from encroaching too close to the scope”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the Jenson et al. device to include the tissue encroachment prevention assembly of Kerin et al. because doing so would have constituted the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvements to yield predictable results. Adding the tissue encroachment prevention assembly of Kerin et al. to the thrombectomy catheter of Jenson et al. would not have changed the main operating principle of the Jenson et al. device but would have simply provided a mechanism for centering the thrombectomy catheter within the vasculature, enhanced the ability of the device to navigate the torturous vasculature, and provided a mechanism for preventing the vessel wall from encroaching too close to the thrombectomy catheter of the Jenson et al. disclosure (col. 12, lines 63-end and col. 13, lines 1-2: “flared portion 230 of cage 208 helps keep the scope centered within the body lumen, facilitating imaging of the entire perimeter. The cage also flexes resiliently to accommodate bends in the lumenal axis. Even when flexed, however, the radially protruding flared portion 230 prevents the lumenal wall from encroaching too close to the scope”).
Regarding claim 2, Jenson et al. as modified by Kerin et al. further discloses wherein said encroachment prevention assembly (208 in Fig. 13D of Kerin et al.) comprises:
a plurality of tines (222) extending from a point at or near the opening at the distal end of the elongate shaft (274 in Fig. 17 of Kerin et al., see 12 in Fig. 1 of Jenson et al, the combination as proposed would yield this), the plurality of tines (222 in Figs. 16-17 of Kerin et al.) having distal ends that are attached to a spherical ball (270 in Fig. 16) and proximal ends (ends near 272 in Fig. 17) that extend from the distal end of the elongate shaft (274, see 12 in Fig. 1 of Jenson et al, the combination as proposed would yield this);
wherein the plurality of tines (222) attached to the spherical ball (270) are configured to form a cage-like structure (see Figs. 17 and 21-22A) that prevents vessel tissue from being drawn into the aspiration lumen (18 in Fig. 1 of Jenson et al.) and into close proximity to the orifice of the supply lumen (22, Kerin et al. col. 13, lines 1-2: “the radially protruding flared portion 230 prevents the lumenal wall from encroaching too close to the scope”).
Regarding claim 3, Jenson et al. as modified by Kerin et al. further discloses wherein at least three tines (222 in Fig. 17 of Kerin et al., there are three) extend from the aspiration lumen (18 in Fig. 1 of Jenson et al., the combination as proposed would place 208 of Kerin et al. onto the distal end of 12 of Jenson et al. such that the tines extend from aspiration lumen 18).
Regarding claim 4, Jenson et al. as modified by Kerin et al. further discloses wherein the tines (222 in Fig. 13D) contain a spring element (230) that allows the tines to bend (see Figs. 21-22, 230 bends to center the catheter and prevent the wall from encroaching too close to the catheter).
Regarding claim 5, Jenson et al. as modified by Kerin et al. further discloses wherein a width of the tines (222 in Figs. 16-17) is tapered towards the spherical ball (270, tines 222 form a cone-like tapered shape).
With respect to claim 8, Jenson et al. discloses an aspiration catheter (10 in Fig. 1) comprising:
an elongate shaft (12) configured for placement within a blood vessel (PP [0004]), the elongate shaft (12) having a distal end with an opening at the distal end (see opening 20);
a supply lumen (22) and an aspiration lumen (18) each extending along an interior of the shaft (12), the supply lumen (22) having a proximal end and a distal end (PP [0040]: “A high pressure lumen 22 may extend through the distal region 14. The high pressure lumen 22 may terminate at a distal opening 24”), and the aspiration lumen (18) having a proximal end and a distal opening (PP [0040]: “a low pressure or evacuation lumen 18 extends through the distal region 12 and may, as shown, extend to the distal end 14. The evacuation lumen 18 may terminate at a distal opening 20”);
an orifice (24) near the distal end of the supply lumen (22), the orifice (24) being configured to allow injection of pressurized fluid into the aspiration lumen (18) at or near the distal end of the aspiration lumen (18) when the pressurized fluid is pumped through the supply lumen (22, see arrows of fluid leaving supply lumen 22 via orifice 24 and entering the aspiration lumen 18 for removal).
However, Jenson et al. fails to disclose a means for preventing the blood vessel from being drawn into the aspiration lumen and into close proximity to the orifice of the supply lumen during aspiration.
In the related field of access catheters (abstract) for navigating the vasculature (col. 6, lines 66-67: “The present invention will have applications for imaging of the vasculature (particularly of the coronary arteries)”), which is pertinent because this field is also concerned with access and visualization into blood vessels for completing a surgical procedure, Kerin et al. teaches a catheter (200 in Fig. 13) comprising a means for preventing the blood vessel from pressing too closely against the distal end of the catheter (208 in Fig. 13D, col. 12, lines 65- end and col. 13 lines 1-2: “The cage also flexes resiliently to accommodate bends in the lumenal axis. Even when flexed, however, the radially protruding flared portion 230 prevents the lumenal wall from encroaching too close to the scope”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the Jenson et al. device to include the tissue encroachment prevention assembly of Kerin et al. because doing so would have constituted the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvements to yield predictable results. Adding the cage assembly of Kerin et al. to the thrombectomy catheter of Jenson et al. would not have changed the main operating principle of the Jenson et al. device but would have simply provided a mechanism for centering the thrombectomy catheter within the vasculature, enhanced the ability of the device to navigate the torturous vasculature, and provided a mechanism for preventing the vessel wall from encroaching too close to the thrombectomy catheter of the Jenson et al. disclosure (col. 12, lines 63-end and col. 13, lines 1-2: “flared portion 230 of cage 208 helps keep the scope centered within the body lumen, facilitating imaging of the entire perimeter. The cage also flexes resiliently to accommodate bends in the lumenal axis. Even when flexed, however, the radially protruding flared portion 230 prevents the lumenal wall from encroaching too close to the scope”).
Regarding claim 9, Jenson et al. as modified by Kerin et al. further discloses wherein the means for preventing the blood vessel from being drawn into the aspiration lumen (208 in Fig. 13D of Kerin et al.) comprises a cage-like structure (see cage formed by 222) extending distally from a point at or near the opening at the distal end of the elongate shaft (see Fig. 17 where 208 extends distally near the opening to catheter 274, the combination as proposed would place the cage 208 on the distal end of elongate shaft 12 in Fig. 1 of Jenson et al.).
Regarding claim 10, Jenson et al. as modified by Kerin et al. further discloses wherein the cage-like structure (208 in Figs. 16-17) comprises a plurality of tines (222), the plurality of tines (222) each having distal ends that are attached to a spherical ball (270) to form the cage-like structure (see Figs. 16-17) and proximal ends that extend from the distal end of the elongate shaft (see Fig. 17 where 208 extends distally near the opening to catheter 274, the combination as proposed would place the cage 208 on the distal end of elongate shaft 12 in Fig. 1 of Jenson et al. such that the proximal ends of tines 222 extend from the distal end of the elongate shaft).
With respect to claim 11, Jenson et al. discloses an aspiration catheter (10 in Fig. 1) comprising:
an elongate shaft (12) configured for placement within a blood vessel (PP [0004]), the elongate shaft (12) having a distal end with an opening at the distal end (see opening 20);
a supply lumen (22) and an aspiration lumen (18) each extending along an interior of the shaft (12), coextensive with the shaft (12, 18 extends alongside within shaft 12), the supply lumen (22) having a proximal end and a distal end (PP [0040]: “A high pressure lumen 22 may extend through the distal region 14. The high pressure lumen 22 may terminate at a distal opening 24”), and the aspiration lumen (18) having a proximal end and a distal opening (PP [0040]: “a low pressure or evacuation lumen 18 extends through the distal region 12 and may, as shown, extend to the distal end 14. The evacuation lumen 18 may terminate at a distal opening 20”);
an orifice (24) near the distal end of the supply lumen (22), the orifice (24) being configured to allow injection of pressurized fluid into the aspiration lumen (18) at or near the distal end of the aspiration lumen (18) when the pressurized fluid is pumped through the supply lumen (22, see arrows of fluid leaving supply lumen 22 via orifice 24 and entering the aspiration lumen 18 for removal).
However, Jenson et al. fails to disclose a tissue encroachment prevention assembly for preventing the blood vessel from being drawn into the aspiration lumen and into close proximity to the orifice of the supply lumen during aspiration, the tissue encroachment prevention assembly comprising at least one of a cage-like structure.
In the related field of access catheters (abstract) for navigating the vasculature (col. 6, lines 66-67: “The present invention will have applications for imaging of the vasculature (particularly of the coronary arteries)”), which is pertinent because this field is also concerned with access and visualization into blood vessels for completing a surgical procedure, Kerin et al. teaches a catheter (200 in Fig. 13) comprising a tissue encroachment prevention assembly (208 in Fig. 13D) which prevents the blood vessel from pressing too closely against the distal end of the catheter (col. 12, lines 65- end and col. 13 lines 1-2: “The cage also flexes resiliently to accommodate bends in the lumenal axis. Even when flexed, however, the radially protruding flared portion 230 prevents the lumenal wall from encroaching too close to the scope”), the tissue encroachment prevention assembly (208) comprising at least one of a cage-like structure (222 give 208 a cage-like structure).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the Jenson et al. device to include the tissue encroachment prevention assembly of Kerin et al. because doing so would have constituted the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvements to yield predictable results. Adding the tissue encroachment prevention assembly of Kerin et al. to the thrombectomy catheter of Jenson et al. would not have changed the main operating principle of the Jenson et al. device but would have simply provided a mechanism for centering the thrombectomy catheter within the vasculature, enhanced the ability of the device to navigate the torturous vasculature, and provided a mechanism for preventing the vessel wall from encroaching too close to the thrombectomy catheter of the Jenson et al. disclosure (col. 12, lines 63-end and col. 13, lines 1-2: “flared portion 230 of cage 208 helps keep the scope centered within the body lumen, facilitating imaging of the entire perimeter. The cage also flexes resiliently to accommodate bends in the lumenal axis. Even when flexed, however, the radially protruding flared portion 230 prevents the lumenal wall from encroaching too close to the scope”).
Regarding claim 12, Jenson et al. as modified by Kerin et al. further discloses a plurality of tines (222) extending from a point at or near the opening at the distal end of the elongate shaft (274 in Fig. 17 of Kerin et al., see 12 in Fig. 1 of Jenson et al, the combination as proposed would yield this), the plurality of tines (222 in Figs. 16-17 of Kerin et al.) each having distal ends that are attached to a spherical ball (270 in Fig. 16) and proximal ends (ends near 272 in Fig. 17) that extend from the distal end of the elongate shaft (274, see 12 in Fig. 1 of Jenson et al, the combination as proposed would yield this), wherein the plurality of tines (222) attached to the spherical ball (270) prevent vessel tissue from being drawn into the aspiration lumen (18 in Fig. 1 of Jenson et al.) and into close proximity to the orifice of the supply lumen (22, Kerin et al. col. 13, lines 1-2: “the radially protruding flared portion 230 prevents the lumenal wall from encroaching too close to the scope”).
Regarding claim 13, Jenson et al. as modified by Kerin et al. further discloses wherein at least three tines (222 in Fig. 17 of Kerin et al., there are three) extend from the aspiration lumen (18 in Fig. 1 of Jenson et al., the combination as proposed would place 208 of Kerin et al. onto the distal end of 12 of Jenson et al. such that the tines extend from aspiration lumen 18).
Regarding claim 14, Jenson et al. as modified by Kerin et al. further discloses wherein the tines (222 in Fig. 13D) contain a spring element (230) that allows the tines to bend (see Figs. 21-22, 230 bends to center the catheter and prevent the wall from encroaching too close to the catheter).
Regarding claim 16, Jenson et al. as modified by Kerin et al. further discloses wherein a width of the tines (222 in Figs. 16-17) is tapered towards the spherical ball (270, tines 222 form a cone-like tapered shape).
Regarding claim 17, Jenson et al. as modified by Kerin et al. further discloses wherein the tines (222 in Fig. 16) are laser welded or soldered directly to a surface of the spherical ball (270, col. 10, lines 42-46: “The tracking tip may be formed from a wide variety of polymer or metallic materials, preferably comprising a shape memory alloy, urethane, adhesive, solder, or the like. In many embodiments, the cage elements are affixed together at the tracking tip to maintain the structural integrity of the cage”).
Regarding claim 18, Jenson et al. as modified by Kerin et al. further discloses wherein the spherical ball (270 in Fig. 16, see also 224 in Fig. 13C) comprises a blind hole to receive the tines (222, see tines 222 extending into blind hole of 224).
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenson et al. (US PGPub 2022/0387064 A1) in view of Kerin et al. (US Patent No. 5,873,815), as applied to independent claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Vale et al. (US PGPub 2014/0371779 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Jenson et al. as modified by Kerin et al. fails to disclose wherein the spherical ball is made of a radiopaque material.
In the same field of thrombectomy catheters (abstract), Vale et al. teaches a clot retrieval device (1 in Fig. 1) comprising an atraumatic distal feature (8), wherein the atraumatic distal feature (8) is made of a radiopaque material (PP [0208]: “A radiopaque coil 8”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the Jenson et al. and Kerin et al. combination to incorporate the teachings of Vale et al. and include wherein the spherical ball is made of a radiopaque material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this modification as it is a simple substitution of materials between similar atraumatic distal features which would have yielded predictable results, as the modification as proposed would not alter the main operating principle of the Jenson et al. or Kerin et al. disclosures and would simply provide enhanced visualization of the device within the vasculature to aid in navigation.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenson et al. (US PGPub 2022/0387064 A1) in view of Kerin et al. (US Patent No. 5,873,815), as applied to independent claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Mintz (US PGPub 2022/0061871 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Jenson et al. as modified by Kerin et al. fails to disclose a mesh configuration at the proximal ends of the tines.
In the same field of aspiration catheters (abstract), Mintz teaches an aspiration catheter (10 in Figs. 1A-B) comprising a distal expandable member (18 in Fig. 5) including tines (34) and a mesh configuration (41) at the proximal ends of the tines (34).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combination of Jenson et al. and Kerin et al. according to the teachings of Mintz and included the mesh configuration as taught. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this modification because doing so constitutes the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, as modifying the combination in this way would not alter the main operating principle of the Jenson et al. or Kerin et al. disclosures and would simply allow for a more controlled flexion of the tines while navigating a patient’s vasculature (Mintz PP [0124]: “hinges 41 may enable controlled bending of prongs 34 in a radial direction, as well as reduce unintended bending of prong 34 in other directions, such as circumferential bending”).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenson et al. (US PGPub 2022/0387064 A1) in view of Kerin et al. (US Patent No. 5,873,815), as applied to independent claim 11 above, and further in view of Keating et al. (US PGPub 2021/0307766A1).
Regarding claim 15, Jenson et al. as modified by Kerin et al. further discloses wherein the plurality of tines (222 in Figs. 16-17) extend from a base (272).
However, the combination as proposed fails to disclose wherein the base has holes dispersed throughout.
In the same field of thrombectomy catheters for use with an expandable distal structure (abstract), Keating et al. teaches a distal cage-like structure (see Fig. 16) including a plurality of tines (45) configured for use at the distal end of a catheter (see Fig. 1). Kelly et al. further teaches wherein the plurality of tines (45) extend from a base (end of 100 seen in Fig. 16) wherein the base (100) has holes dispersed throughout (see openings between 118).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the Jenson et al. and Kerin et al. combination to further include the teachings of Keating et al. and incorporate the holes dispersed throughout the base. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this modification because doing so constitutes the use of a known technique to improve a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Modifying the Jenson et al. and Kerin et al. combination in this way would not change the main operating principle of the combination, as the Keating et al. device is also intended for use within the vasculature to retrieve clots, but doing so would have simply enabled “good push and torque characteristics, kink resistance, resistance to collapse under aspiration, and solid resistance to tensile elongation” (PP [0078]) at the distal end of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bridget E. Rabaglia whose telephone number is (571)272-2908. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 5pm.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at (571) 272-4696. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/BRIDGET E. RABAGLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/TAN-UYEN T HO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771