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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (Claims 14-20) in the reply filed on 6/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/26/2026.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-16, 19, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0226107 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Jones et al. disclose a method of deploying an embolic protection device (Figs. 4, 6, & 11), comprising: positioning an introducer 30 (Figs. 4, 6, & 11) in a descending aorta 16 (Figs. 4 & 6); advancing an embolic protection device 32 (Figs. 4, 6, & 11) through the introducer 30 while maintaining the introducer 30 in the descending aorta 16 (Figs. 4 & 6); extending the embolic protection device 32 from a distal end of the introducer 30 (paragraphs [0037]-[0040]); advancing the embolic protection device 32 over an aortic arch (paragraphs [0037]-[0040]); and expanding a filter portion of the embolic protection device in the aortic arch while the introducer 30 remains in the descending aorta (paragraphs [0037]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 15, Jones et al. further disclose capturing embolic material in the filter portion while performing a procedure through the embolic protection device 32 (paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 16, Jones et al. further disclose wherein expanding the filter portion comprises actuating a filter actuator 64 to transition a mouth of the filter portion from a closed configuration to an open configuration (paragraphs [0046]-[0047] - actuator 64 when proximally retracted moves a proximal mouth of the filter to a closed configuration and release of the proximal retraction moves the proximal mouth of the filter back to an open configuration).
Regarding claim 19, Jones et al. further disclose wherein positioning the introducer comprises: advancing the introducer 30 over a guidewire 28 (Figs. 4, 6, &11) to the descending aorta 16.
Regarding claim 20, Jones et al. further disclose closing the filter portion after completing a procedure (paragraph [0046] - actuator 64 discussed in the rejection of claim 16 above); and withdrawing the embolic protection device through the introducer 30 while maintaining captured embolic material within the closed filter portion (paragraph [0052]).
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.
Claims 17 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0226107 A1) in view of Parker et al. (WO 2010/120671 A1).
Regarding claims 17 & 18, Jones et al. fail to explicitly disclose loading the embolic protection device into the introducer using a loading sleeve [claim 17];and removing the loading sleeve by separating elements of the loading sleeve [claim 18].
However, Parker et al. teach a method of loading a tubular medical device into a deployment system in a compressed configuration using a tubular loading sleeve, wherein the loading sleeve is torn (‘separated’) to be removed therefrom during the loading process (paragraph [0014]). Since Jones et al.’s embolic filter is a tubular medical device that is loaded into a deployment system in a compressed configuration in order to be introduced within the body, it is considered that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the tearable loading sleeve loading method suggested and taught by Parker et al. to load Parker et al.’s embolic filter into the introducer catheter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY LAUREN FISHBACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7899. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a-3:30p.
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.
ASHLEY LAUREN FISHBACK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3771
/ASHLEY L FISHBACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771 July 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights