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 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.
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) 1-7 & 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English et al. (US 2022/0062647) in view of Maschino et al. (US 2022/0362545).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the recited “release tool retaining feature” encompasses any structure configured to removably or frictionally retain a release tool within an access hole while the tool engages the collet body. The claim does not require any particular geometry, material, or retention mechanism beyond retaining the release tool during engagement.
Claim 1
English et al. teaches an implantable medical device comprising:
a housing and a header arranged with the housing;
E.G [0017], [0024], [0036], (Fig.1)
a connector port arranged within the header and configured to receive an implantable lead
E.G. [0017], [0024], [0036]
a connector block bore extending between proximal and distal ends of the connector port
E.G. [0025]-[0039], (Figs. 2-5)
an access hole 250 extending radially through the connector port and oriented orthogonally to the bore axis, the access hole sized to receive a release tool/probe
E.G. [0030], [0035], [0039], (Fig. 2)
a collet assembly 210 including a collet body and bearings 214 arranged about a circumference of the collet body.
E.G. [0026], [0030], [0036], [0046]
the bearings contacting an inner surface of the connector port and frictionally engaging an implantable lead to secure the lead in response to insertion of the lead into the connector port
E.G. [0008], [0031], [0036], [0040], [0046]
English et al. further teaches the access hole positioned such that a release tool inserted through access hole 250 engages that forward/proximal portion of the collet body to move the collet assembly and release the lead.
Claim 2
English et al. teaches the plurality of bearings translating toward the distal end of the connector port in response to insertion of the implantable lead
E.G. [0026], [0031]-[0034].
Claim 3
English et al. teaches a spring element 222 disposed about the distal end of the collet assembly and configured to bias the collet assembly toward the proximal end to the connector port
E.G. [0026], [0031]-[0034].
Claim 4.
English et al. does not expressly teach the spring element having a serpentine shape when viewed orthogonally to the connector port axis.
The spring reference teaches a serpentine spring configuration.
It would have been obvious to utilize the known serpentine spring geometry in English’s spring element because serpentine spring configuration were known equivalents for providing resilient biasing while accommodating dimensional and packaging constraints. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Claim 5.
English et al. teaches the distal portion of the collet assembly being dimensioned and guided within the connector port to maintain axial alignment during axial translation of the collet assembly
E.G. [0025]-[0034], [0037], [0041] [0046].
Claim 6.
English et al. teaches substantially the same limitations as claim 1, including:
housing:
header;
connector block/connector port;
access hole 250 configured to receive a release tool;
collet assembly including a collet body and bearings;
release tool engagement with the forward portion of the collet body through access hole 250
E.G. [0035], [0039].
English et al., however, does not expressly teach a release-tool retaining feature.
Maschino et al. teaches a resilient retention clasp 310 configured to removably retain a tool component relative to another structure, E.G. [0062]-[0063], Fig. 3
It would have been obvious to modify English’s access hole 250 to include a resilient retention member as taught Maschino et al. in order to temporarily retain the release tool during lead-lease procedures, thereby improving tool stability, reducing inadvertent disengagement, and facilitating manipulation of the collet assembly. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Claim 7
English et al. in view of Maschino et al. teaches or suggests the tool retaining feature being a resilient member, namely retention clasp 310 (E.G., [0062]-[0063], Fig. 3), extending across and retaining a tool component during use.
Claim 13
English et al. teaches a connector port assembly comprising:
a connector block having proximal and distal ends and a connector block bore;
access hole 250 extending radially through the connector block and sized to receive a release tool, E.G.
E.G. [0030], [0035], [0039]; Fig.2
a collet assembly including a collet body and bearings arranged about a circumference of the collet body
E.G. [0026], [0030], [0036], [0046].
bearings configured to frictionally engage an implantable lead within the connector block bore
E.G. [0008], [0031], [0036], [0040], [0046].
the access hole positioned such that a release tool engages the forward portion of the collet body through the access hole
E.G. [0035], [0039].
Claim 14.
English et al. does not explicitly teach a release tool retaining feature.
Maschino et al. teaches retention clasp 310 configured to removably retain a tool component
E.G. [0062]-[0063]; Fig. 3
It would have been obvious to incorporate the retention feature of Maschino et al. into English’s access hole 250 for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 6.
Claim 15.
English et al. in view of Maschino et al. teaches or suggests the release tool retaining feature being a resilient member, namely retention clasp 310, E.G. [0062]-[0063], Fig. 3
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the resilient retention feature of Maschino et al. into the connector port assembly of English et al. because doing so would predictably improve retention and stability of a release tool during lead-release procedures, reduce inadvertent disengagement, and facilitate manipulation of the collet assembly while preserving the intended operation of English’s lead-retention mechanism. Such modification merely applies a known retention technique to a known device to obtain predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 & 16-20 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, including English et al. and Maschino et al., teaches a connector port assembly having a collet assembly, bearings, an access hole for receiving a release tool and a resilient retention feature for retaining a tool component. However, the prior art of the record fails to teach or suggest a release tool retaining feature comprising a resilient member having opposite end portions retained within slots formed adjacent the access hole and a center portion spanning across the access hole, as recited in claims 8 and 16.
Because claims 9-12 depend from claim 8 and claims 17-20 depend from claim 16, the additional limitations of those claims are considered allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependency. Accordingly, claims 8-12 and 16-20 are considered allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE F JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/NICOLE F JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights