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, 6, 8, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: in line 9, “current carrying elements” should read “current conducting elements” for consistency with line 4.
Claim 6: in line 3, “current carrying elements” should read “current conducting elements” for consistency with line 4 of claim 1.
Claim 8: in line 4, “the detachment function” should read “
Claim 8: in line 8, “establishing” should read “configured to establish” since the cable is not positively recited in combination with the detachment device in claim 8.
Claim 19: in line 6, “the device side” should read “a device side”.
Claim 19: in line 7, “the implant side” should read “an implant side”.
Claim 19: in line 10, “current carrying elements” should read “current conducting elements” for consistency with line 5 of claim 19. Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 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.
Claim 4 includes that the cable is provided with “at least two current carrying wires”. It is unclear if these current carrying wires are in addition to the previously recited “at least two current conducting wires” in lines 2-3 of claim 1, or if these elements are one in the same and claim 4 is further defining the at least two current conducting wires as two current carrying wires. For purposes of claim interpretation, claim 4 is being treated as though the previously recited at least two current conducting wires are being further defined as at least two current carrying wires. Clarification is required.
Claim 6 includes the limitation “the insertion funnel (3) has, on the device, a diameter which is suitably adapted to dimensions of the current carrying elements of the implant”. The meaning and scope, of “on the device” is unclear since the insertion funnel is on the cable (not the detachment device), and is on the implant side of the cable, which is opposite from the side of the cable that connects to the detachment device. For purposes of claim interpretation, claim 6 is being treated as though “on the device” has been deleted from the claim. Clarification is required.
Claim 9 includes “the detachment parameters”, “the wiring”, “the connector socket”, and “the connection cables” which lack antecedent basis. As best understood, it appears that claim 9 is meant to depend from claim 8, which provides antecedent basis for the connector socket. For purposes of claim interpretation, claim 9 is being treated as though it reads “Detachment device according to claim 8, characterized in that said device selects [[the]] detachment parameters in accordance with [[the]] wiring of the connector socket (6) and respective coding prerequisites of the
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turovskiy (US 2010/0331948) in view of Bashiri (US 2009/0018653).
Regarding claim 1, Turovskiy discloses a cable (24) for the connection of an electrical detachment device (26) to the end of a catheter-guided implant (22/8), with the cable comprising at least two current conducting wires (leads 52, 52’, which connect to R1,R2; see fig. 1c), a connecting plug (32; fig. 1A) for joining the cable to the detachment device, and a plug connector (34; fig. 1A) for connection to current conducting elements of the implant (34 connects current conducting elements R1, R2 to rest of 24), and wherein the current conducting wires being connected on a device side to contacts of the connecting plug (32) and on an implant side to contacts of the plug connector (34). Turovskiy fails to expressly disclose that the cable, on the implant side (side with plug connector 34), is provided with an insertion funnel which is suitable for conductively joining the current carrying elements (leads 52, 52’) of the implant to the contacts of the plug connector.
Bashiri discloses another catheter-guided implant that is released via electrolytic detachment from a delivery member. In order to properly guide the current conducting elements of the delivery member (18) into contact with electrical contacts (62,66) within a plug connector that connects to a control circuitry (see fig. 2), the plug connector has an insertion funnel (112; figs. 3-5). The proximal end of the delivery member of the implant is funneled into a cylindrical tube which then guides the proximal end of the delivery member into a cylindrical tube which then guides it into alignment with the electrical contacts (62,66) ([0082]). Bashiri further discloses that such a funnel allows different types and sizes of delivery members (18) to be mated with the plug connector ([0083]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the prior art of Turovskiy to include an insertion funnel provided on the implant side (34) of the cable as taught by Bashiri in order to facilitate introduction of the delivery member into the plug by providing a relatively large opening that funnels the delivery member into a smaller diameter portion that snuggly guides the currently conducting elements into contact with electrical contacts within the plug connector, and to allow the use of differently sized implant-carrying delivery members.
Regarding claim 3, Turovskiy does not expressly disclose that the electrical contacts which directly contact the current carrying elements may be arranged on a printed circuit board (90). However, Bashiri teaches providing electrical contacts (62, 64, 66) which directly contact current carrying elements of the implant on a printed circuit board (90; fig. 3 and [0078]). It would have been obvious to have further modified the plug connector of Turovskiy, which receives the proximal end of the guidewire on which the current carrying elements of the implant are disposed, to include a printed circuit board with the plug connector contacts thereon since Turovskiy is silent on the exact structure within the plug connector and Bashiri teaches that such an arrangement is known in the art for joining electrical contacts between current carrying elements of an implant and a plug connector. Additionally, the printed circuit board provides a low profile, inexpensive means of providing electrically connectivity between the electrical contacts and the current conducting elements of the implant as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, the cable is provided with at least two current carrying wires (leads 52, 52’, which conduct and carry current from the contacts in the detachment device to R1, R2; see also fig. 1c of Turovskiy).
Regarding claim 5, the cable is provided with three or more current conducting wires (note three wires extending from AC power supply through 34 in fig. 1c of Turovskiy). Bashiri further teaches connecting at least one current conducting wire to a remote trigger (button 100, which is remote from implant) in order to control power delivery to the current carrying elements of the implant ([0079]) and thus it would have been obvious to have modified Turovskiy to include a current conducting wire connected to a remote trigger as taught by Bashiri in order to facilitate user control over detachment of the implant.
Regarding claim 6 (noting 35 USC 112b rejection above), as taught by Bashiri, the insertion funnel has a diameter which is suitably adapted to dimensions of the current carrying elements of the implant (see figs. 4, 5).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turovskiy in view of Bashiri as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goble et al. (US 6,074,386). Turovskiy in view of Bashiri discloses the invention substantially as stated above except for the contacts of the plug connecting being contact springs.
Goble discloses another surgical instrument (14) having current carrying elements (28A,B) extending to its proximal end, wherein the proximal end of the surgical instrument is inserted into a device side of a plug connector (35) formed on a handle portion (12) to which the proximal end of the surgical instrument is attached, the handle portion formed at a distal end of a cable (20) that attaches to a power source (10). Goble discloses that the plug connector comprises contact springs (36A,B), which conductively join the current carrying elements in order to electrically connect a power source to the surgical instrument via the plug connector. It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the prior art of Turovskiy to construct the contacts of the plug connector (34) as spring contacts as taught by Goble for the predictable result of providing a secure connection between the current carrying elements of the implant and the contacts of the plug connector due to the bias of the contact springs.
Claim(s) 7-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turovskiy in view of Bashiri as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cha et al. (US 6,146,210).
Regarding claim 7, Turovskiy in view of Bashiri discloses the invention substantially as stated above with respect to claim 1 except for the connecting plug including guiding elements and latching elements as claimed.
Cha discloses another connecting plug (40) for connecting a cable (60) to an electronic unit (14), wherein the connecting plug includes guiding elements (guide ribs 48;) for ensuring correct connection to the detachment device as well as latching elements (46) for establishing a firm joint (col. 3, ll. 53-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the connecting plug of Turovskiy, which is silent on the internal structure of the connecting plug, to include guiding and latching elements as taught by Cha in order to prevent the plug from being displaced in the socket upon connection of the plug to the socket and to prevent the plug from being inadvertently removed from the socket.
Regarding claims 8-19, Turovskiy discloses a detachment device (26; figs. 1a-1c) for disconnection of a catheter-based implant (8) from a guidewire (22), the detachment device comprising a power source (noting 26 is called “power supply 26”), the detachment device governing the detachment function as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (noting 26 applies the voltage; [0065]), and a connector socket (unnumbered structure on 26 to which connector 32 is attached) for connection to a cable (24) that establishes a connection to the guidewire of the catheter-guided implant. Turovskiy fails to disclose that the connector socket has at least two contacts, latching elements establishing a firm connection to complementary latching elements of the cable, as well as guiding elements to make sure cable has been correctly fitted.
Cha discloses another connector socket (30) on an electronic unit, the socket connecting to a connecting plug (40) for connecting a cable (60) to the electronic unit, wherein the connector socket includes guiding elements (guide holes 38) for ensuring correct connection between the socket and plug as well as latching elements (catches 36) for establishing a firm joint to complementary latching elements (46a) of the connecting plug of the cable (col. 3, ll. 53-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the connecting socket of Turovskiy, which is silent on most of the structure of the socket of the detachment device, to include guiding and latching elements as taught by Cha in order to prevent the plug from being displaced in the socket upon connection of the plug to the socket and to prevent the plug from being inadvertently removed from the socket.
Turovskiy is also silent on the internal structure of the detachment device (power supply 26) that allows it to supply power to the guidewire (22). Bashiri discloses another detachment device for disconnection of a catheter-based implant from a guidewire, the detachment device being provided with a power source (92), an on/off switch (102), a release button (100; [0072]), signal lights (status indicators 56) to indicate an operating state and malfunctions ([0060], noting “misconnection”), and electronic control elements governing detachment function (see control circuitry 60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the prior art of Turovskiy, which is silent on the internal structure of the detachment device, to include a power source, on/off switch, release button, signal lights, and electronic control elements as taught by Bashiri in order provide structure that allows control over the delivery of electrical energy from the detachment device to the catheter-guided implant for electrolytic detachment of the implant and that allows visual indication of the status of the device.
Regarding claim 9, noting claim 9 is being treated as though it depends from claim 8 as best understood in view of the 35 USC 112b rejection above, the device selects the detachment parameters in accordance with wiring of the connector socket and respective coding prerequisites of the cable as taught by Bashiri (e.g., Bashiri teaches that the device selects between monopolar and bipolar in accordance with what is connected to the connector socket 108; see [0071]).
Regarding claim 10, the connector socket, as modified in view of Cha, is a round socket comprising contact pins (32,34; fig. 4 of Cha). Consider at least receiving hole 32a of the socket (figs. 2-4), which receives pin (42) and is round. The claim does not limit which particular aspect of the socket is round. Thus, the socket, which includes a round receiving hole (32a), can be considered round at least at the inner wall of the round receiving hole of the socket.
Regarding claim 11, as taught by Cha, the connector socket (6) is provided with at least three contact pins (34 of Cha) and such a modification would have been obvious to the prior art of Turovskiy since at least three wires are illustrated as passing through the cable and thus three contact pins allow connection of the socket to each of these three wires.
Regarding claim 12, as taught by Cha, the connector socket (6) is provided with five contact pins (35 of Cha, noting that “being provided with” is considered inclusive or open-ended and thus does not exclude pins in excess of 5). It would have been obvious to have further modified the prior art of Turovskiy to include 5 contact pins (instead of three as noted above) since such an arrangement is known in the art according to Cha, and it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 13, as taught by Cha, the connector socket has two latching elements (catches 36; fig. 3 of Cha) positioned opposite one another.
Regarding claim 14, as taught by Cha, the connector socket is provided with two guiding elements (guide holes 38; fig. 3 of Cha).
Regarding claim 15, the guiding elements (38) are located adjacent to one another, noting the term “adjacent” is being given its ordinary meaning of “near”). The limitation “in such a way that they allow the connection of different cables for attachment to the guidewire of the catheter-guided implant” is a recitation of intended use. Since different cables could be attached to the connector socket so long as they have a compatible shape, the prior art of Turovskiy is considered to meet this recitation of intended use.
Regarding claim 16, the guiding elements (38, which includes surfaces 38a that project from back wall of 30) taught by Cha are guiding lugs (i.e. projecting part designed to guide plug into socket).
Regarding claim 17, the latching elements and guiding elements are arranged concentrically in the connector socket as taught by Cha, noting that the latching elements and guiding elements have a common center (i.e., center of socket).
Regarding claim 18, Turovskiy discloses a cable (24; fig. 1a) for establishing a connection with the guidewire (22) in combination with the detachment device (26).
Regarding claim 19, the cable (24) of Turovskiy is a cable for the connection of an electrical detachment device (26) to the end of a catheter-guided implant (22/8; fig. 1A), with the cable comprising at least two current conducting wires (leads 52, 52’), a connecting plug (32; fig. 1A) for joining the cable to the detachment device, and a plug connector (34; fig. 1A) for connection to current conducting elements of the implant (34 connects current conducting elements R1, R2 to rest of 24), and wherein the current conducting wires being connected on a device side to contacts of the connecting plug (32) and on an implant side to contacts of the plug connector (34). Turovskiy fails to expressly disclose that the cable, on the implant side (side with plug connector 34), is provided with an insertion funnel which is suitable for conductively joining the current carrying elements (leads 52, 52’) of the implant to the contacts of the plug connector.
Bashiri discloses another catheter-guided implant that is released via electrolytic detachment from a delivery member. In order to properly guide the current conducting elements of the delivery member (18) into contact with electrical contacts (62,66) within a plug connector that connects to a control circuitry (see fig. 2), the plug connector has an insertion funnel (112; figs. 3-5). The proximal end of the guided implant is funneled into a cylindrical tube which then guides the proximal end of the delivery member into a cylindrical tube which then guides it into alignment with the electrical contacts (62,66) ([0082]). Bashiri further discloses that such a funnel allows different types and sizes of delivery members (18) to be mated with the plug connector ([0083]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the prior art of Turovskiy to include an insertion funnel provided on the implant side (34) of the cable as taught by Bashiri in order to facilitate introduction of the delivery member into the plug by providing a relatively large opening that funnels the delivery member into a smaller diameter portion that snuggly guides the currently conducting elements into contact with electrical contacts within the plug connector, and to allow the use of differently sized implant-carrying delivery members.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9,203,104 to Hui discloses a socket for connection to the plug of a cable, wherein the socket is funnel shaped to facilitate insertion of the plug into the socket and includes contacts that attach to current conducting wires of the cable (see fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN SONNETT HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5, with alternate Fridays off.
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.
KSH 8/17/2026
/KATHLEEN S HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights