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 1, 8 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 8, the phrase “each hook” should read “each of the hooks” or similar language, to properly refer to the hooks previously introduced.
In claim 1, line 11, the phrase “each hook” should read “each of the hooks” or similar language, to properly refer to the hooks previously introduced.
In claim 1, line 12, the phrase “each hook” should read “each of the hooks” or similar language, to properly refer to the hooks previously introduced.
In claim 8, line 8, the phrase “each hook” should read “each of the hooks” or similar language, to properly refer to the hooks previously introduced.
In claim 11, line 1, the phrase “each hook” should read “each of the hooks” or similar language, to properly refer to the hooks previously introduced.
In claim 11, line 2, the phrase “each hook” should read “each of the hooks” or similar language, to properly refer to the hooks previously introduced.
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.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “connecting member” in claims 6 and 19.
Para. [0032] of the published application describes the “connecting member” as structure 120 (see figs. 5-6). “Connecting member” uses the generic placeholder “member” coupled with the term “connecting”, which is functional in that the limitation alternatively recites a member for connecting, and the term “member” is not preceded by a structural modifier since the term “connecting” does not imply any structure.
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.
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 § 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 4-5 and 7-20 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 claim recites “the hook” in line 1. It is unclear whether the phrase is referring to each of the hooks previously introduced, at least one hook previously introduced, or separate hooks. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to at least one hook previously introduced.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “the hook” in line 2. It is unclear whether the phrase is referring to each of the hooks previously introduced, at least one hook previously introduced, or separate hooks. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to at least one hook previously introduced.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “the hook” in line 15. It is unclear whether the phrase is referring to each of the hooks previously introduced, at least one hook previously introduced, or separate hooks. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to at least one hook previously introduced.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “the hook” in line 2. It is unclear whether the phrase is referring to each of the hooks previously introduced, at least one hook previously introduced, or separate hooks. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to at least one hook previously introduced.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “the hook” in line 14. It is unclear whether the phrase is referring to each of the hooks previously introduced, at least one hook previously introduced, or separate hooks. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to at least one hook previously introduced.
Further, the claim recites “the hook” in line 16. It is unclear whether the phrase is referring to each of the hooks previously introduced, at least one hook previously introduced, or separate hooks. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to at least one hook previously introduced.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites “the hook” in line 2. It is unclear whether the phrase is referring to each of the hooks previously introduced, at least one hook previously introduced, or separate hooks. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to at least one hook previously introduced.
Claims 9-13, 16-17 and 19-20 are indefinite due to their dependencies on indefinite base claims 8 and 15.
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.
Claim(s) 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amplatz (US 2009/0171386 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Amplatz discloses (see abstract; paras. [0029]-[0069]; figs. 1a-11) a method for occluding a left atrial appendage (“LAA”) (figs. 3a-c), the method comprising:
positioning an occluder (10, para. [0040]; fig. 1a) in a collapsed condition within a delivery catheter (loaded into lumen 25 of delivery catheter 29, para. [0054]; fig. 2), the occluder including:
a lobe (12, para. [0040]) having a proximal end defining a proximal surface of the lobe (proximal end of 12), a distal end defining a distal surface of the lobe (distal end of 12), and a middle portion connecting and extending between the proximal end and the distal end (depicted in fig. 1a); and
a plurality of stabilizing wires (20, para. [0041]) coupled to the lobe (figs. 1a-11), each of the plurality of stabilizing wires having a hook at a distal end thereof (see figs. 4-7);
advancing the occluder into or adjacent to the LAA while the occluder is collapsed within the delivery catheter (paras. [0060]-[0061]);
transitioning the lobe into a partially-expanded state (partially expanded into LAA, considered to be partially expanded state, para. [0067]) in which the distal end of the lobe has exited the delivery catheter and has begun to self-expand while the proximal end of the lobe remains collapsed within the delivery catheter (considered to include staged expansion in which proximal end is released after distal end of 12, para. [0067]; figs. 10-11);
while the lobe is in the partially expanded state, contacting the hook with tissue of the LAA (para. [0067]); and
after contacting the hook with tissue of the LAA, fully deploying the occluder from the delivery catheter (hooks engage tissue as body member 12 expands before full release, para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 16, Amplatz discloses the method of claim 15. Amplatz further discloses wherein between the partially expanded state of the lobe and the full deployment of the occluder from the delivery catheter, the hook remains in contact with the tissue of the LAA (further fixates device 10, para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 17, Amplatz discloses the method of claim 15. Amplatz further discloses wherein after fully deploying the occluder from the delivery catheter, compression on the lobe from tissue of the LAA creates a valley within the middle portion of the lobe (depicted in figs. 10-11, valley considered to extend from the central longitudinal axis outwards, such that the valley is created internally between proximal and distal ends of the body member 12 as discussed below, annotated fig. 1a).
PNG
media_image1.png
876
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1A of Amplatz
Regarding claim 18, Amplatz discloses the method of claim 17. Amplatz further discloses wherein while the valley is created within the middle portion of the lobe, the hook remains in contact with the tissue of the LAA (para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 19, Amplatz discloses the method of claim 15. Amplatz further discloses wherein fully deploying the occluder from the delivery catheter includes deploying a disc (14, para. [0040]) of the occluder from the delivery catheter (para. [0067]), the disc of the occluder being coupled to the lobe of the occluder by a connecting member (19, para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 20, Amplatz discloses the method of claim 19. Amplatz further discloses wherein upon deploying the disc of the occluder, the disc at least partially covers an ostium of the LAA (paras. [0042] and [0067]).
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) 1-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin (US 2022/0008050 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Morin discloses (see abstract; paras. [0019]-[0050]; figs. 3-8) an occluder (110, para. [0031]; fig. 3) for occluding a left atrial appendage (“LAA”) (para. [0022]), the occluder comprising:
a lobe (118, para. [0032]; fig. 4) sized and shaped for positioning within the LAA (considered to be sized and shaped for positioning within LAA, para. [0043]), the lobe having a proximal end defining a proximal surface (124) of the lobe, a distal end defining a distal surface (128) of the lobe, and a middle portion (130) connecting and extending between the proximal end and the distal end (fig. 4), wherein the lobe has an expanded condition (expanded configuration, para. [0042]) in the absence of applied forces and a collapsed condition (reduced configuration, para. [0042]) for delivery to the LAA; and
a plurality of stabilizing wires (132, para. [0033]) coupled to the lobe (fig. 4), each of the plurality of stabilizing wires having a hook (134) at a distal end thereof (fig. 4), each hook having a terminal end positioned radially outwardly of the lobe in the expanded condition of the lobe and being configured to frictionally engage tissue of the LAA (considered to frictionally engage tissue when retained at target site, paras. [0033] and [0038]),
wherein in the expanded condition of the lobe, each hook has a distalmost point (distalmost point of hooks 134, fig. 4), the distalmost point of each hook being positioned a spaced axial distance from the distal surface of the lobe in the expanded condition of the lobe (depicted in fig. 4).
Morin further discloses the spaced axial distance relatively similar to the spaced axial distance of the instant spec. (see fig. 5 of the instant spec.).
However, Morin fails to explicitly disclose the spaced axial distance being between about 0 mm and about 1.5 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Morin to have a spaced axial distance of 1 mm which falls within the claimed range of between 0 mm and 1.5mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Morin would not operate differently with the claimed axial distance and since the hooks of Morin are intended to be located relative to the distal end of the lobe as depicted in fig. 4, the device would function appropriately having the claimed spaced axial distance. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter “may” be within the claimed ranges and “may” be at least partly responsible for the described functionality (para. [0046] of the published application).
Regarding claim 2, Morin (as modified) teaches the occluder of claim 1. Morin (as modified) further teaches wherein the spaced axial distance is about 1.0 mm (combination considered to further teach the spaced axial distance being about 1 mm).
Regarding claim 3, Morin (as modified) teaches the occluder of claim 1. Morin further discloses wherein a transition between the middle portion and the distal end of the lobe is curved (T2, para. [0032]; fig. 4), the curve of the transition having a contour length measured between (i) a point at which a distal end of the middle portion joins a proximal end of the curved transition, and (ii) a point at which a distal end of the curved transition joins the distal surface of the lobe (considered to be contour length of transition T2, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Morin (as modified) teaches the occluder of claim 3.
Morin further discloses wherein in the expanded condition of the lobe, the hook crosses from an interior of the lobe to an exterior of the lobe at a crossing point (depicted in fig. 4).
However, Morin (as modified) fails to explicitly teach the crossing point being positioned between about 25% and about 50% of the contour length.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Morin (as modified) to have the crossing point positioned between about 25% and about 50% of the contour length, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Morin (as modified) would not operate differently with the claimed location of the crossing point, and since the hooks of Morin are intended to cross over the transition T2 as depicted in fig. 4, the device would function appropriately having the claimed location of the crossing point within the transition. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter “may” be within the claimed ranges (para. [0047] of the published application).
Regarding claim 5, Morin (as modified) teaches the occluder of claim 4. Morin further discloses wherein the transition has a radius of curvature between about 0.075 inches (1.905 mm) and about 0.125 inches (3.175 mm) (para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 6, Morin (as modified) teaches the occluder of claim 1. Morin further discloses wherein the occluder includes a disc (116, para. [0032]) at a proximal end of the occluder (fig. 4), and a connecting member (120) connects the disc and the lobe (para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 7, Morin (as modified) teaches the occluder of claim 1. Morin further discloses wherein in a compressed state of the lobe (figs. 5b-6), a valley is formed within the middle portion of the lobe (annotated fig. 5b, note the claim language does not specify the direction the valley extends, such that the middle portion is considered to form a valley at least internally as the proximal and distal surfaces bow outwardly, para. [0039]), and in the compressed state, the hook extends farther radially outward from a central longitudinal axis of the lobe than does any structure of the lobe (depicted in figs. 5b-6).
PNG
media_image2.png
808
848
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5B of Morin
Regarding claim 8, Morin discloses (see abstract; paras. [0019]-[0050]; figs. 3-8) an occluder (110, para. [0031]; fig. 3) for occluding a left atrial appendage (“LAA”) (para. [0022]), the occluder comprising:
a lobe (118, para. [0032]; fig. 4) sized and shaped for positioning within the LAA (considered to be sized and shaped for positioning within LAA, para. [0043]), the lobe having a proximal end defining a proximal surface (124) of the lobe, a distal end defining a distal surface (128) of the lobe, and a middle portion (130) connecting and extending between the proximal end and the distal end (fig. 4), wherein the lobe has an expanded condition (expanded configuration, para. [0042]) in the absence of applied forces and a collapsed condition (reduced configuration, para. [0042]) for delivery to the LAA; and
a plurality of stabilizing wires (132, para. [0033]) coupled to the lobe (fig. 4), each of the plurality of stabilizing wires having a hook (134) at a distal end thereof (fig. 4), each hook having a terminal end positioned radially outwardly of the lobe in the expanded condition of the lobe and being configured to frictionally engage tissue of the LAA (considered to frictionally engage tissue when retained at target site, paras. [0033] and [0038]),
wherein a transition between the middle portion and the distal end of the lobe is curved (T2, para. [0032]; fig. 4), the curve of the transition having a contour length measured between (i) a point at which a distal end of the middle portion joins a proximal end of the curved transition, and (ii) a point at which a distal end of the curved transition joins the distal surface of the lobe (considered to be contour length of transition T2, fig. 4),
wherein in the expanded condition of the lobe, the hook crosses from an interior of the lobe to an exterior of the lobe at a crossing point (depicted in fig. 4).
However, Morin fails to explicitly disclose the crossing point being positioned between about 25% and about 50% of the contour length.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Morin to have the crossing point positioned about 30% of the contour length which falls within the claimed range of between about 25% and about 50% of the contour length, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Morin would not operate differently with the claimed location of the crossing point, and since the hooks of Morin are intended to cross over the transition T2 as depicted in fig. 4, the device would function appropriately having the claimed location of the crossing point within the transition. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter “may” be within the claimed ranges (para. [0047] of the published application).
Regarding claim 9, Morin (as modified) teaches the occluder of claim 8. Morin (as modified) further teaches wherein in the expanded condition of the lobe, the crossing point is positioned between about 25% and about 40% of the contour length (combination considered to further teach the crossing point falling within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 10, Morin (as modified) teaches the occluder of claim 9. Morin (as modified) further teaches wherein in the expanded condition of the lobe, the crossing point is positioned between about 30% and about 35% of the contour length (combination considered to further teach the crossing point falling within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 12, Morin (as modified) teaches the occluder of claim 8. Morin further discloses wherein the transition has a radius of curvature between about 0.075 inches (1.905 mm) and about 0.125 inches (3.175 mm) (para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 13, Morin (as modified) teaches the occluder of claim 8. Morin further discloses wherein the occluder includes a disc (116, para. [0032]) at a proximal end of the occluder (fig. 4), and a connecting member (120) connects the disc and the lobe (para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 14, Morin (as modified) teaches the occluder of claim 8. Morin further discloses wherein in a compressed state of the lobe (figs. 5b-6), a valley is formed within the middle portion of the lobe (annotated fig. 5b, note the claim language does not specify the direction the valley extends, such that the middle portion is considered to form a valley at least internally as the proximal and distal surfaces bow outwardly, para. [0039]), and in the compressed state, the hook extends farther radially outward from a central longitudinal axis of the lobe than does any structure of the lobe (depicted in figs. 5b-6).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin in view of Kreidler (US 8801746 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Morin (as modified) teaches the occluder of claim 8.
Morin further discloses wherein in the expanded condition of the lobe, each hook has a distalmost point (distalmost point of 134, fig. 5a), the distalmost point of each hook being positioned a spaced axial distance from the distal surface of the lobe in the expanded condition of the lobe (figs. 4-5a).
However, Morin fails to explicitly disclose the spaced axial distance being about 1 mm.
Kreidler teaches (col. 10 lines 15-25; fig. 4a), in the same field of endeavor, an occluder (abstract) comprising a hook (195) having a distalmost point (fig. 4a) positioned a spaced axial distance from the distal surface of a lobe (depicted in fig. 4a), the spaced axial distance being about 1 mm (positioned about 2 mm from distal bend 66, considered to encompass a spacing of 1 mm), for the purpose of providing an appropriate location relative to the distal surface that forces the tissue anchor downward to facilitate recapture of the frame into the catheter (col. 9 line 65-col. 10 line 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spaced axial distance of the hooks of Morin (as modified) to be about 1 mm from the distal surface of the lobe, in order to facilitate recapture of the device when desired, to allow for repositioning, based on the suggestions and teachings of Kreidler (col. 9 line 65-col. 10 line 14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2013/0131717 A1 to Glimsdale, disclosing an occluding device including hooks.
US 2015/0005809 A1 to Ayres, disclosing an occluding device with hooks in varying locations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIGID K BYRD whose telephone number is (571)272-7698. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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.
/BRIGID K BYRD/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights