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 .
Benefit
Applicant claims benefit to US Provisional 63/552816 (13 February 2024).
Formal Matters
Claims 1-20 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 April 2025 has been considered by the examiner. A signed copy is attached.
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:
Tubular member (claims 1, 4-6, 10, 11, and 15-17). The specification describes the tubular member as having “a slim profile with a low delivery force to reduce the risk of vessel perforation and/or damage (¶53). Thrombectomy device 109 in the form of a “tubular member” is defined as an aspiration catheter (¶57) that is slidably disposed within a lumen of the distal access catheter 108. The specification describes physical strength properties of the tubular member at ¶59 including that it be relatively flexible, pushable, relatively kink- and buckle-resistant and that it be configured to substantially conform to the curvature of the vasculature. Accordingly, the phrase “a tubular member” is broadly interpreted as a tubular shaped structure comprising a lumen that can facilitate the removal of a thrombus using aspiration to pull the thrombus into the tubular member lumen (Specification, ¶51) when the tubular member is disposed adjacent to a thrombus and suction is applied (¶52).
Plurality of Protrusions (claim 9). The specification describes a plurality of protrusions as extending from the circumferential struts (¶¶19, 32) and can include “e.g. such as the protrusions 517 of FIG 5”. Accordingly, the phrase “a plurality of protrusions” is broadly interpreted as structures extending from the circumferential struts exemplified by protrusions 517 in FIG 5.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moberg, US 20110306995 (15 December 2011).
Regarding independent claim 1, Moberg teaches a thrombectomy system (Abstract) comprising:
a thrombectomy device (FIGs 1A-6, atherectomy catheter 2; ¶44) including a tubular member (catheter body 8) having a proximal end region (handle, ¶44) configured to be disposed extracorporeally (¶44, tubing (not shown) to facilitate suction of debris through the annular space between the catheter body 8 and drive shaft 20) and a distal end region configured to be disposed at an intravascular treatment site at or adjacent to a thrombus (¶50), the tubular member (catheter body 8) comprising:
a sidewall (catheter body 8, ¶50) defining a lumen extending therethrough from the proximal end region to the distal end region (¶50); and
an opening in the sidewall in the distal end region (window 6, ¶49), and
a suction source configured to be fluidically coupled to the lumen (¶50).
Moberg’s embodiment of atherectomy catheter 2 does not expressly teach that the opening including a proximal portion spanning a first width and a distal portion spanning a second width greater than the first width.
However, Moberg teaches “same/similar” embodiment, atherectomy catheter 2C (FIGs 10-12; ¶62) showing that the opening includes a proximal portion spanning a first width and a distal portion spanning a second width greater than the first width (FIG 10, window 6; ¶50). Moberg also expressly teaches the similarities and differences in structure between embodiments 2 and 2C at ¶62.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of the multiple embodiments of Moberg given that Moberg, as a whole, included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single embodiment. The multiple embodiments in Moberg provide a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the reference itself, as a whole, and in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine reference teachings with a reasonable expectation of success. The claimed invention would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine teachings within the four corners of a reference to achieve the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. Moberg does not expressly show the differential widths of window 6 in embodiment of atherectomy catheter 2 (Figs 2A/B, and 3) as it does with FIG 10, which is drawn to embodiment of atherectomy catheter 2C (¶62). Moberg teaches different embodiments each solving known problems in the art, including the same and similar features (¶62). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select among the various embodiments of Moberg given that Moberg expressly teaches that embodiment of atherectomy catheter 2 has the same or similar features of catheter 2C with the primary distinctions between the two embodiments being that embodiment 2C has an elongated cup shaped surface 24c of the cutting element 4c with a larger radial surface area than in embodiment 2. One would have a reasonable expectation of success in selecting from the finite embodiments taught by Moberg that are best suited for the particular end-use case.
The phrase “a tubular member” is broadly interpreted as a tubular shaped structure comprising a lumen that can facilitate the removal of a thrombus using aspiration to pull the thrombus into the tubular member lumen (Specification, ¶51) when the tubular member is disposed adjacent to a thrombus and suction is applied (¶52). The specification also described the tubular member as having “a slim profile with a low delivery force to reduce the risk of vessel perforation and/or damage (¶53). Thrombectomy device 109 in the form of a “tubular member” is defined as an aspiration catheter (¶57) that is slidably disposed within a lumen of the distal access catheter 108. The specification describes physical strength properties of the tubular member at ¶59 including that it be relatively flexible, pushable, relatively kink- and buckle-resistant and that it be configured to substantially conform to the curvature of the vasculature.
Regarding claim 5, Moberg teaches the thrombectomy system of claim 1, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above.
Moberg teaches wherein the proximal portion of the side opening (window 6) spans a first length of the tubular member (¶44) and the distal portion of the side opening spans a second length of the tubular member less than the first length (¶43).
Regarding claim 6, Moberg teaches the thrombectomy system of claim 1, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above.
Moberg teaches wherein the distal end region of the tubular member comprises a plurality of circumferential struts (FIGs 2A/B, tissue collection chamber 12; ¶44), the circumferential struts defining the opening (¶44).
Regarding claim 10, Moberg teaches the thrombectomy system of claim 1, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above.
Moberg teaches wherein the tubular member (8) further comprises a distal opening on a distal face of the tubular member (FIG 2B, shown as part of the longitudinal axis “LA"; FIG 6, lumen 43 to accommodate a guidewire, ¶54).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moberg, US 20110306995 (15 December 2011) in view of Ray et al., US 20140046243 (13 February 2014).
Regarding claim 2, Moberg teaches the thrombectomy system of claim 1, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above.
Moberg does not teach the system further comprising a cover at least partially overlying the proximal portion of the opening.
However, Moberg teaches tissue collection chamber 12 comprising a covering of polymer (¶44).
Ray teaches the system further comprising a cover at least partially overlying the proximal portion of the opening (¶17, cover for radial constraint).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Moberg and Ray, given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference. Moberg and Ray teach in the same field of endeavor comprising thrombectomy catheters with lumens for clot disruption and aspiration.
Although, Moberg discloses the claimed thrombectomy catheter device (a shaft with an opening in a sidewall and a suction source fluidically coupled to the lumen), Moberg does not disclose that the system comprises a cover at least partially overlying the proximal portion of the opening.
Ray specifically addresses a covering that provides radial constraint where the cover may be a sleeve or sheath that may be axially advanced and retracted relative to the catheter body to cover and uncover a radially expansible agitator. Because Moberg’s apparatus includes a cutter that uses cutter window 6 (opening in the sidewall), a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to control access to the opening in the sidewall in Moberg’s architecture would reasonably consult Ray’s sleeve or sheath solution. Ray’s sleeve or sheath solution can be incorporated alongside Moberg’s window 6 (opening in the sidewall) using known assembly methods without redesigning Moberg’s core device. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to render Moberg’s device radial-constraint-compatible would look for established structural designs to avoid creating a novel or untested component.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (windows in thrombectomy devices) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding sleeve or sheath to the thrombectomy device to provide a covering for the opening to provide a radial constraint), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moberg, US 20110306995 (15 December 2011) in view of Ray et al., US 20140046243 (13 February 2014) and further in view of Dubrul et al., US 20160022293 (28 January 2016).
Regarding claim 3, Moberg modified by Ray teaches the thrombectomy system of claim 2, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above.
Moberg modified by Ray does not teach wherein the suction source is configured to displace the cover from the proximal portion of the opening.
Dubrul teaches an aspiration catheter assembly 94 (FIGs 14-17) comprising tearaway sleeve 92 whose movement is accommodated by a weakened region 108, where a suction force may be created in tube 82 to remove the occlusion (¶102).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Moberg, Ray, and Dubrul, given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference. Moberg, Ray, and Dubrul teach in the same field of endeavor comprising thrombectomy catheters with lumens for clot disruption and aspiration.
Although, Moberg modified by Ray discloses the claimed thrombectomy catheter device (a shaft with an opening in a sidewall and a suction source fluidically coupled to the lumen), further comprising a cover at least partially overlying the proximal portion of the opening, Moberg modified by Ray does not teach wherein the suction source is configured to displace the cover from the proximal portion of the opening.
Dubrul specifically addresses an aspiration catheter assembly 94 (FIGs 14-17) comprising tearaway sleeve 92 whose movement is accommodated by a weakened region 108, where a suction force may be created in tube 82 to remove the occlusion (¶102). Because Moberg’s apparatus includes a cutter that uses cutter window 6 (opening in the sidewall), a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to control access to the opening in the sidewall in Moberg’s architecture would reasonably consult Ray’s sleeve or sheath solution. Ray’s sleeve or sheath solution can be incorporated alongside Moberg’s cutter window6 (opening in the sidewall) using known assembly methods without redesigning Moberg’s core device. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to render Ray’s sleeve or sheath device radial-constraint-compatible using a tearaway sleeve would look for established designs to avoid creating a novel tearaway sleeve, such as the one taught by Dubrul, that could be torn away when suction was engaged (¶102).
Because the references address the same engineering problem (radial-constraint-capable window coverings in thrombectomy devices) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding sleeve or sheath to the thrombectomy device to provide a covering for the opening to provide a radial constraint where that sleeve or sheath is a tearaway sleeve such that a suction source may displace the cover), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moberg, US 20110306995 (15 December 2011) in view of Mintz, US 20220062588 (3 March 2022).
Regarding claim 7, Moberg teaches the thrombectomy system of claim 6, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above.
Moberg does not expressly teach wherein the circumferential struts have a greater circumferential width in a proximal section than in a distal section. Mintz teaches expandable member 50 comprising struts 56 (FIGs 7-8B; ¶132). Mintz teaches wherein the circumferential struts (¶144) have a greater circumferential width in a proximal section than in a distal section (¶136-138).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Moberg and Mintz, given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference. Moberg and Mintz teach in the same field of endeavor comprising aspiration catheters and the catheters of both references comprise circumferential struts.
Although, Moberg discloses the claimed thrombectomy catheter device (a shaft with an opening in a sidewall and a suction source fluidically coupled to the lumen comprising circumferential struts), Moberg does not expressly teach wherein the circumferential struts have a greater circumferential width in a proximal section than in a distal section.
Mintz specifically addresses aspiration catheters comprising circumferential struts comprising a greater circumferential width in a proximal section than in a distal section. Mintz teaches slidable legs 52 and fixed legs 54 between struts 56 such that the width of an angle, and this the circumferential width, can vary (¶¶136-138).
Because Moberg’s apparatus includes a sidewall opening (window 6) and suction system to evacuate thrombus, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to better control the aspiration of clots is an aspiration catheter system near the opening in the sidewall within the tissue collection chamber 12 in Moberg’s architecture would reasonably consult Mintz’s slidable circumferential strut solution. Mintz’s slidable circumferential strut solution can be incorporated alongside Moberg’s window 6 (opening in the sidewall) using known assembly methods without redesigning Moberg’s core device. Mintz’s slidable struts are readily interchangeable with the struts of Moberg’s tissue collection chamber 12. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to optimize aspiration and provide greater control for the clinician, would look for established designs that result in more effective removal of the thrombus from the vasculature of the patient, such as the slidable struts of Mintz.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (aspiration catheters comprising circumferential struts) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (substituting or adding slidable circumferential struts as a thrombotic capture control solution), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 8, Moberg teaches the thrombectomy system of claim 6, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above.
Moberg does not expressly teach wherein the circumferential struts comprise an upper portion and a lower portion, the upper portion offset longitudinally from the lower portion.
Mintz teaches expandable member 50 comprising struts 56 (FIGs 7-8B; ¶132). Mintz teaches wherein the circumferential struts comprise an upper portion and a lower portion, the upper portion offset longitudinally from the lower portion (FIGs 7-8B; ¶¶136-137).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Moberg and Mintz, given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference. Moberg and Mintz teach in the same field of endeavor comprising aspiration catheters and the catheters of both references comprise circumferential struts.
Although, Moberg discloses the claimed thrombectomy catheter device (a shaft with an opening in a sidewall and a suction source fluidically coupled to the lumen comprising circumferential struts), Moberg does not expressly teach wherein the circumferential struts have a greater circumferential width in a proximal section than in a distal section.
Mintz specifically addresses aspiration catheters comprising circumferential struts wherein the circumferential struts comprise an upper portion and a lower portion, the upper portion offset longitudinally from the lower portion (FIGs 7-8B; ¶¶136-137).
Because Moberg’s apparatus includes a sidewall opening (window 6) and suction system to evacuate thrombus, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to better control the aspiration of clots is an aspiration catheter system near the opening in the sidewall within the tissue collection chamber 12 in Moberg’s architecture would reasonably consult Mintz’s slidable circumferential strut solution. Mintz’s slidable circumferential strut solution can be incorporated alongside Moberg’s window 6 (opening in the sidewall) using known assembly methods without redesigning Moberg’s core device. Mintz’s slidable struts are readily interchangeable with the struts of Moberg’s tissue collection chamber 12. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to optimize aspiration and provide greater control for the clinician, would look for established designs that result in more effective removal of the thrombus from the vasculature of the patient, such as the slidable struts of Mintz.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (aspiration catheters comprising circumferential struts) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (substituting or adding slidable circumferential struts as a thrombotic capture control solution), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 9, Moberg teaches the thrombectomy system of claim 6, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above.
Moberg does not expressly teach circumferential struts further comprising a plurality of protrusions extending from the circumferential struts. Mintz teaches expandable member 50 comprising struts 56 (FIGs 7-8B; ¶132). Mintz teaches wherein the circumferential struts further comprising a plurality of protrusions extending from the circumferential struts (FIG 7-8A, strut hinges 58; ¶145).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Moberg and Mintz, given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference. Moberg and Mintz teach in the same field of endeavor comprising aspiration catheters and the catheters of both references comprise circumferential struts.
Although, Moberg discloses the claimed thrombectomy catheter device (a shaft with an opening in a sidewall and a suction source fluidically coupled to the lumen comprising circumferential struts), Moberg does not expressly teach wherein the circumferential struts have a greater circumferential width in a proximal section than in a distal section.
Mintz specifically addresses aspiration catheters comprising circumferential struts wherein the circumferential struts further comprising a plurality of protrusions extending from the circumferential struts (FIG 7-8A, strut hinges 58; ¶145).
Because Moberg’s apparatus includes a sidewall opening (window 6) and suction system to evacuate thrombus, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to better control the aspiration of clots is an aspiration catheter system near the opening in the sidewall within the tissue collection chamber 12 in Moberg’s architecture would reasonably consult Mintz’s slidable circumferential strut solution. Mintz’s slidable circumferential strut solution can be incorporated alongside Moberg’s window 6 (opening in the sidewall) using known assembly methods without redesigning Moberg’s core device. Mintz’s slidable struts are readily interchangeable with the struts of Moberg’s tissue collection chamber 12. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to optimize aspiration and provide greater control for the clinician, would look for established designs that result in more effective removal of the thrombus from the vasculature of the patient, such as the slidable struts of Mintz.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (aspiration catheters comprising circumferential struts) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (substituting or adding slidable circumferential struts as a thrombotic capture control solution), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
The phrase “a plurality of protrusions” is broadly interpreted as structures extending from the circumferential struts exemplified by protrusions 517 in FIG 5.
Claims 4, 11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moberg, US 20110306995 (15 December 2011) in view of Jalgaonkar et al., US 20200324079 (15 October 2020).
Regarding claim 4, Moberg teaches the thrombectomy system of claim 1, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above.
Moberg wherein when the suction source is coupled with the tubular member (¶44).
Moberg does not teach that the suction source applies a greater negative pressure in the distal portion of the opening than in the proximal portion of the opening.
Jalgaonkar teaches aspiration catheters comprising sidewall openings with differential pressure wherein the negative pressure is greater in the distal portion of the side opening than in the proximal portion of the side opening for a first time period, and
wherein the negative pressure in the distal portion of the side opening is less than or equal to the negative pressure in the proximal portion of the side opening for a second time period after the first time period (¶¶68, 98).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Moberg and Jalgaonkar, given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference. Moberg and Jalgaonkar teach in the same field of endeavor comprising thrombectomy catheters with lumens for clot disruption and aspiration.
Although, Moberg discloses the claimed thrombectomy catheter device (a shaft with an opening in a sidewall and a suction source fluidically coupled to the lumen), Moberg does not teach wherein the negative pressure is greater in the distal portion of the side opening than in the proximal portion of the side opening for a first time period, and
wherein the negative pressure in the distal portion of the side opening is less than or equal to the negative pressure in the proximal portion of the side opening for a second time period after the first time period.
Jalgaonkar specifically addresses aspiration catheters comprising sidewall openings with differential pressure wherein the negative pressure is greater in the distal portion of the side opening than in the proximal portion of the side opening for a first time period, and
wherein the negative pressure in the distal portion of the side opening is less than or equal to the negative pressure in the proximal portion of the side opening for a second time period after the first time period (¶¶68, 98).
Because Moberg’s apparatus includes a sidewall opening (window 6) and suction system to evacuate thrombus, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to control negative pressure to avoid clogs in the vacuum/aspiration system in or near the opening in the sidewall in Moberg’s architecture would reasonably consult Jalgaonkar’s differential pressure solution. Jalgaonkar’s differential pressure solution can be incorporated alongside Moberg’s window 6 (opening in the sidewall) using known assembly methods without redesigning Moberg’s core device. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to avoid situations in which the suction at the sidewall is blocked or clogged, would look for established designs that result in more effective removal of the thrombus from the vasculature of the patient, such as the differential negative pressure solution of Jalgaonkar (¶¶68, 98).
Because the references address the same engineering problem (vacuum/suction in thrombectomy devices) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding differential negative pressure solutions to avoid clogs or blockages of the opening and the catheter), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
The phrase “a tubular member” is broadly interpreted as a tubular shaped structure comprising a lumen that can facilitate the removal of a thrombus using aspiration to pull the thrombus into the tubular member lumen (Specification, ¶51) when the tubular member is disposed adjacent to a thrombus and suction is applied (¶52). The specification also described the tubular member as having “a slim profile with a low delivery force to reduce the risk of vessel perforation and/or damage (¶53). Thrombectomy device 109 in the form of a “tubular member” is defined as an aspiration catheter (¶57) that is slidably disposed within a lumen of the distal access catheter 108. The specification describes physical strength properties of the tubular member at ¶59 including that it be relatively flexible, pushable, relatively kink- and buckle-resistant and that it be configured to substantially conform to the curvature of the vasculature.
Regarding independent claim 11, Moberg teaches a method comprising: disposing a medical device (FIGs 1A-6, atherectomy catheter 2; claim 28) within a vessel at or adjacent a treatment site (¶44), the medical device comprising:
a tubular member (catheter body 8), the tubular member (8) having a side opening (window 6) in a distal region of the tubular member (FIGs 2B, 3), wherein the side opening comprises a proximal portion and a distal portion (FIGs 2B, 3);
and applying a negative pressure to the tubular member (¶44).
Moberg does not teach wherein the negative pressure is greater in the distal portion of the side opening than in the proximal portion of the side opening for a first time period, and
wherein the negative pressure in the distal portion of the side opening is less than or equal to the negative pressure in the proximal portion of the side opening for a second time period after the first time period.
Jalgaonkar teaches aspiration catheters comprising sidewall openings with differential pressure wherein the negative pressure is greater in the distal portion of the side opening than in the proximal portion of the side opening for a first time period, and
wherein the negative pressure in the distal portion of the side opening is less than or equal to the negative pressure in the proximal portion of the side opening for a second time period after the first time period (¶¶68, 98).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Moberg and Jalgaonkar, given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference. Moberg and Jalgaonkar teach in the same field of endeavor comprising thrombectomy catheters with lumens for clot disruption and aspiration.
Although, Moberg discloses the claimed thrombectomy catheter device (a shaft with an opening in a sidewall and a suction source fluidically coupled to the lumen), Moberg does not teach wherein the negative pressure is greater in the distal portion of the side opening than in the proximal portion of the side opening for a first time period, and
wherein the negative pressure in the distal portion of the side opening is less than or equal to the negative pressure in the proximal portion of the side opening for a second time period after the first time period.
Jalgaonkar specifically addresses aspiration catheters comprising sidewall openings with differential pressure wherein the negative pressure is greater in the distal portion of the side opening than in the proximal portion of the side opening for a first time period, and
wherein the negative pressure in the distal portion of the side opening is less than or equal to the negative pressure in the proximal portion of the side opening for a second time period after the first time period (¶¶68, 98).
Because Moberg’s apparatus includes a sidewall opening (window 6) and suction system to evacuate thrombus, a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to control negative pressure to avoid clogs in the vacuum/aspiration system in or near the opening in the sidewall in Moberg’s architecture would reasonably consult Jalgaonkar’s differential pressure solution. Jalgaonkar’s differential pressure solution can be incorporated alongside Moberg’s window 6 (opening in the sidewall) using known assembly methods without redesigning Moberg’s core device. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to avoid situations in which the suction at the sidewall is blocked or clogged, would look for established designs that result in more effective removal of the thrombus from the vasculature of the patient, such as the differential negative pressure solution of Jalgaonkar (¶¶68, 98).
Because the references address the same engineering problem (vacuum/suction in thrombectomy devices) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding differential negative pressure solutions to avoid clogs or blockages of the opening and the catheter), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
The phrase “a tubular member” is broadly interpreted as a tubular shaped structure comprising a lumen that can facilitate the removal of a thrombus using aspiration to pull the thrombus into the tubular member lumen (Specification, ¶51) when the tubular member is disposed adjacent to a thrombus and suction is applied (¶52). The specification also described the tubular member as having “a slim profile with a low delivery force to reduce the risk of vessel perforation and/or damage (¶53). Thrombectomy device 109 in the form of a “tubular member” is defined as an aspiration catheter (¶57) that is slidably disposed within a lumen of the distal access catheter 108. The specification describes physical strength properties of the tubular member at ¶59 including that it be relatively flexible, pushable, relatively kink- and buckle-resistant and that it be configured to substantially conform to the curvature of the vasculature.
Regarding claim 15, Moberg modified by Jalgaonkar teaches the method of claim 11, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above.
Moberg teaches wherein the proximal portion of the side opening (window 6) occupies a first length of the tubular member (¶44) and the distal portion of the side opening occupies a second length of the tubular member less than the first length (¶43).
Regarding claim 16, Moberg modified by Jalgaonkar teaches the method of claim 11, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above.
Moberg teaches wherein the distal region of the tubular member (8) comprises a plurality of circumferential struts (tissue collection chamber 12), the circumferential struts defining the side opening (FIG 2B; ¶44).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moberg, US 20110306995 (15 December 2011) in view of Jalgaonkar et al., US 20200324079 (15 October 2020) and further in view of Ray et al., US 20140046243 (13 February 2014).
Regarding claim 12, Moberg modified by Jalgaonkar teaches the method of claim 11, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above.
Moberg modified by Jalgaonkar does not teach wherein the medical device further comprises a cover overlying the proximal portion of the side opening.
Ray teaches the system further comprising a cover at least partially overlying the proximal portion of the opening (¶17, cover for radial constraint).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Moberg, Jalgaonkar, and Ray, given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference. Moberg, Jalgaonkar, and Ray teach in the same field of endeavor comprising thrombectomy catheters with lumens for clot disruption and aspiration.
Although, Moberg discloses the claimed thrombectomy catheter device (a shaft with an opening in a sidewall and a suction source fluidically coupled to the lumen), Moberg does not teach wherein the medical device further comprises a cover overlying the proximal portion of the side opening. Jalgaonkar specifically addresses aspiration catheters comprising sidewall openings with differential pressure wherein the negative pressure is greater in the distal portion of the side opening than in the proximal portion of the side opening for a first time period, and
wherein the negative pressure in the distal portion of the side opening is less than or equal to the negative pressure in the proximal portion of the side opening for a second time period after the first time period (¶¶68, 98), as set forth above. However, neither Moberg nor Jalgaonkar expressly disclose that the system comprises a cover at least partially overlying the proximal portion of the opening.
Ray specifically addresses a covering that provides radial constraint where the cover may be a sleeve or sheath that may be axially advanced and retracted relative to the catheter body to cover and uncover a radially expansible agitator. Because Moberg’s apparatus includes a window 6 (opening in the sidewall), a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to control access to the opening in the sidewall in Moberg’s architecture would reasonably consult Ray’s sleeve or sheath solution. Ray’s sleeve or sheath solution can be incorporated alongside Moberg’s window 6 (opening in the sidewall) using known assembly methods without redesigning Moberg’s core device. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to render Moberg’s device radial-constraint-compatible would look for established structural designs to avoid creating a novel or untested component.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (sidewall windows in thrombectomy devices) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding sleeve or sheath to the thrombectomy device to provide a covering for the opening to provide a radial constraint), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moberg, US 20110306995 (15 December 2011) in view of Jalgaonkar et al., US 20200324079 (15 October 2020) and further in view of Ray et al., US 20140046243 (13 February 2014) and Dubrul et al., US 20160022293 (28 January 2016).
Regarding claim 13, Moberg modified by Jalgaonkar teaches the method of claim 11, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above.
Moberg modified by Jalgaonkar does not teach wherein, during the first time period, the cover is in a first position, and during the second time period, the cover is in a second position proximal to the first position.
However, Jalgaonkar also discloses the differential pressures in different portions of the opening (¶¶68, 98).
Ray teaches the system further comprising a cover at least partially overlying the proximal portion of the opening (¶17, cover for radial constraint).
Dubrul teaches an aspiration catheter assembly 94 (FIGs 14-17) comprising a cover overlying the proximal portion of the side opening (FIGs 15-17, tearaway sleeve 92; ¶102). Dubrul’s tearaway sleeve 92 solves the time differential placement of the sleeve of Ray such that it is torn away or partially torn away proximally from the opening when the suction is activated. Accordingly, Dubrul teaches that during the first time period (prior to suction activation), the cover is in a first position, and during the second time period (after suction is activated), the cover is in a second position proximal to the first position (¶102).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Moberg, Jalgaonkar, Ray, and Dubrul given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference. Moberg, Jalgaonkar, Ray, and Dubrul teach in the same field of endeavor comprising thrombectomy catheters with lumens for clot disruption and aspiration.
Although, Moberg discloses the claimed thrombectomy catheter device (a shaft with an opening in a sidewall and a suction source fluidically coupled to the lumen), Moberg does not teach wherein the medical device further comprises a cover overlying the proximal portion of the side opening. Jalgaonkar specifically addresses aspiration catheters comprising sidewall openings with differential pressure wherein the negative pressure is greater in the distal portion of the side opening than in the proximal portion of the side opening for a first time period, and
wherein the negative pressure in the distal portion of the side opening is less than or equal to the negative pressure in the proximal portion of the side opening for a second time period after the first time period (¶¶68, 98), as set forth above. However, neither Moberg nor Jalgaonkar expressly disclose that the system comprises a cover at least partially overlying the proximal portion of the opening.
Ray specifically addresses a covering that provides radial constraint where the cover may be a sleeve or sheath that may be axially advanced and retracted relative to the catheter body to cover and uncover a radially expansible agitator. Because Moberg’s apparatus includes a window 6 (opening in the sidewall), a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to control access to the opening in the sidewall in Moberg’s architecture would reasonably consult Ray’s sleeve or sheath solution. Ray’s sleeve or sheath solution can be incorporated alongside Moberg’s window 6 (opening in the sidewall) using known assembly methods without redesigning Moberg’s core device. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to render Moberg’s device radial-constraint-compatible would look for established structural designs to avoid creating a novel or untested component.
Dubrul specifically addresses an aspiration catheter assembly 94 (FIGs 14-17) comprising tearaway sleeve 92 whose movement is accommodated by a weakened region 108, where a suction force may be created in tube 82 to remove the occlusion (¶102). Because Moberg’s apparatus includes a window 6 (opening in the sidewall), a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to control access to the opening in the sidewall in Moberg’s architecture would reasonably consult Ray’s sleeve or sheath solution. Ray’s sleeve or sheath solution can be incorporated alongside Moberg’s window 6 (opening in the sidewall) using known assembly methods without redesigning Moberg’s core device. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to render Ray’s sleeve or sheath device radial-constraint-compatible using a tearaway sleeve would look for established designs to avoid creating a novel tearaway sleeve, such as the one taught by Dubrul, that could be torn away when suction was engaged (¶102).
Because the references address the same engineering problem (radial-constraint-capable window coverings in thrombectomy devices) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding sleeve or sheath to the thrombectomy device to provide a covering for the opening to provide a radial constraint where that sleeve or sheath is a tearaway sleeve such that a suction source may displace the cover), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 14, Moberg modified by Jalgaonkar teaches the method of claim 11, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above.
Moberg modified by Jalgaonkar does not teach wherein during the second time period, the cover is at least partially displaced.
However, Jalgaonkar discloses the differential pressures in different portions of the opening (¶¶68, 98).
Ray teaches the system further comprising a cover at least partially overlying the proximal portion of the opening (¶17, cover for radial constraint).
Dubrul teaches an aspiration catheter assembly 94 (FIGs 14-17) comprising a cover overlying the proximal portion of the side opening (FIGs 15-17, tearaway sleeve 92; ¶102). Dubrul’s tearaway sleeve 92 solves the time differential placement of the sleeve of Ray such that it is torn away or partially torn away proximally from the opening when the suction is activated. Accordingly, Dubrul teaches that during the first time period (prior to suction activation), the cover is in a first position, and during the second time period (after suction is activated), the cover is in a second position proximal to the first position (¶102).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Moberg, Jalgaonkar, Ray, and Dubrul given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference. Moberg, Jalgaonkar, Ray, and Dubrul teach in the same field of endeavor comprising thrombectomy catheters with lumens for clot disruption and aspiration.
Although, Moberg discloses the claimed thrombectomy catheter device (a shaft with an opening in a sidewall and a suction source fluidically coupled to the lumen), Moberg does not teach wherein the medical device further comprises a cover overlying the proximal portion of the side opening. Jalgaonkar specifically addresses aspiration catheters comprising sidewall openings with differential pressure wherein the negative pressure is greater in the distal portion of the side opening than in the proximal portion of the side opening for a first time period, and
wherein the negative pressure in the distal portion of the side opening is less than or equal to the negative pressure in the proximal portion of the side opening for a second time period after the first time period (¶¶68, 98), as set forth above. However, neither Moberg nor Jalgaonkar expressly disclose that the system comprises a cover at least partially overlying the proximal portion of the opening.
Ray specifically addresses a covering that provides radial constraint where the cover may be a sleeve or sheath that may be axially advanced and retracted relative to the catheter body to cover and uncover a radially expansible agitator. Because Moberg’s apparatus includes a window 6 (opening in the sidewall), a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to control access to the opening in the sidewall in Moberg’s architecture would reasonably consult Ray’s sleeve or sheath solution. Ray’s sleeve or sheath solution can be incorporated alongside Moberg’s window 6 (opening in the sidewall) using known assembly methods without redesigning Moberg’s core device. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to render Moberg’s device radial-constraint-compatible would look for established structural designs to avoid creating a novel or untested component.
Dubrul specifically addresses an aspiration catheter assembly 94 (FIGs 14-17) comprising tearaway sleeve 92 whose movement is accommodated by a weakened region 108, where a suction force may be created in tube 82 to remove the occlusion (¶102). Because Moberg’s apparatus includes a window 6 (opening in the sidewall), a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to control access to the opening in the sidewall in Moberg’s architecture would reasonably consult Ray’s sleeve or sheath solution. Ray’s sleeve or sheath solution can be incorporated alongside Moberg’s window 6 (opening in the sidewall) using known assembly methods without redesigning Moberg’s core device. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to render Ray’s sleeve or sheath device radial-constraint-compatible using a tearaway sleeve would look for established designs to avoid creating a novel tearaway sleeve, such as the one taught by Dubrul, that could be torn away when suction was engaged (¶102).
Because the references address the same engineering problem (radial-constraint-capable window coverings in thrombectomy devices) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding sleeve or sheath to the thrombectomy device to provide a covering for the opening to provide a radial constraint where that sleeve or sheath is a tearaway sleeve such that a suction source may displace the cover), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moberg, US 20110306995 (15 December 2011) in view of Ray et al., US 20140046243 (13 February 2014) and further in view of Dubrul et al., US 20160022293 (28 January 2016).
Regarding independent claim 17, Moberg teaches a thrombectomy device (FIGs 1A-6, atherectomy catheter 2; ¶44) comprising:
a tubular member having a sidewall defining a lumen extending therethrough from a proximal end region to a distal end region (catheter body 8, ¶50),
the tubular member (9) configured to be fluidically coupled to a suction source (¶50) to supply negative pressure to the lumen (¶44, tubing (not shown) to facilitate suction of debris through the annular space between the catheter body 8 and drive shaft 20);
an opening in the sidewall in the distal end region (FIGs 2A-B, window 6, ¶49).
Moberg does not expressly teach the opening including a first portion and a second portion.
However, Moberg teaches an embodiment of atherectomy catheter 2C (FIGs 10-12; ¶62) shows that the opening includes a proximal portion spanning a first width and a distal portion spanning a second width greater than the first width (FIG 10, window 6; ¶50). Moberg also teaches the similarities and differences in structure between embodiments 2 and 2C at ¶62.
Moberg does not expressly teach the opening having a rupturable cover extending over only the first portion of the opening such that the second portion of the opening is uncovered.
However, Moberg teaches tissue collection chamber 12 comprising a covering of polymer (¶44).
Ray teaches an aspiration catheter system (FIG 1; ¶36) further comprising a cover at least partially overlying the proximal portion of the opening (¶17, cover for radial constraint).
Dubrul teaches an aspiration catheter assembly 94 (FIGs 14-17) comprising tearaway sleeve 92 whose movement is accommodated by a weakened region 108, where a suction force may be created in tube 82 to remove the occlusion (¶102).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of the multiple embodiments of Moberg given that Moberg, as a whole, included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single embodiment. The multiple embodiments in Moberg provide a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the reference itself, as a whole, and in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine reference teachings with a reasonable expectation of success. The claimed invention would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine teachings within the four corners of a reference to achieve the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. Moberg does not expressly show the differential widths of window 6 in embodiment of atherectomy catheter 2 (Figs 2A/B, and 3) as it does with FIG 10, which is drawn to embodiment of atherectomy catheter 2C (¶62). Moberg teaches different embodiments each solving known problems in the art, including the same and similar features (¶62). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select among the various embodiments of Moberg given that Moberg expressly teaches that embodiment of atherectomy catheter 2 has the same or similar features of catheter 2C with the primary distinctions between the two embodiments being that embodiment 2C has an elongated cup shaped surface 24c of the cutting element 4c with a larger radial surface area than in embodiment 2. One would have a reasonable expectation of success in selecting from the finite embodiments taught by Moberg that are best suited for the particular end-use case.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Moberg, Ray, and Dubrul, given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference. Moberg, Ray, and Dubrul teach in the same field of endeavor comprising thrombectomy catheters with lumens for clot disruption and aspiration.
Although, Moberg modified by Ray discloses the claimed thrombectomy catheter device (a shaft with an opening in a sidewall and a suction source fluidically coupled to the lumen), further comprising a cover at least partially overlying the proximal portion of the opening, Moberg modified by Ray does not teach wherein the suction source is configured to displace the cover from the proximal portion of the opening.
Dubrul specifically addresses an aspiration catheter assembly 94 (FIGs 14-17) comprising tearaway sleeve 92 whose movement is accommodated by a weakened region 108, where a suction force may be created in tube 82 to remove the occlusion (¶102). Because Moberg’s apparatus includes a cutter that uses cutter window 6 (opening in the sidewall), a person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to control access to the opening in the sidewall in Moberg’s architecture would reasonably consult Ray’s sleeve or sheath solution. Ray’s sleeve or sheath solution can be incorporated alongside Moberg’s cutter window6 (opening in the sidewall) using known assembly methods without redesigning Moberg’s core device. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to render Ray’s sleeve or sheath device radial-constraint-compatible using a tearaway sleeve would look for established designs to avoid creating a novel tearaway sleeve, such as the one taught by Dubrul, that could be torn away when suction was engaged (¶102).
Because the references address the same engineering problem (radial-constraint-capable window coverings in thrombectomy devices) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding sleeve or sheath to the thrombectomy device to provide a covering for the opening to provide a radial constraint where that sleeve or sheath is a tearaway sleeve such that a suction source may displace the cover), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
The phrase “a tubular member” is broadly interpreted as a tubular shaped structure comprising a lumen that can facilitate the removal of a thrombus using aspiration to pull the thrombus into the tubular member lumen (Specification, ¶51) when the tubular member is disposed adjacent to a thrombus and suction is applied (¶52). The specification also described the tubular member as having “a slim profile with a low delivery force to reduce the risk of vessel perforation and/or damage (¶53). Thrombectomy device 109 in the form of a “tubular member” is defined as an aspiration catheter (¶57) that is slidably disposed within a lumen of the distal access catheter 108. The specification describes physical strength properties of the tubular member at ¶59 including that it be relatively flexible, pushable, relatively kink- and buckle-resistant and that it be configured to substantially conform to the curvature of the vasculature.
Regarding claim 18, Moburg modified by Ray and Dubrul teaches the thrombectomy device of claim 17, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above.
Moberg teaches atherectomy catheter 2C (FIGs 10-11; ¶62) wherein the first portion is proximal to the second portion (FIG 10, window 6; ¶62).
Regarding claim 19, Moburg modified by Ray and Dubrul teaches the thrombectomy device of claim 17, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above.
Moburg teaches atherectomy catheter 2C wherein the first portion has a smaller width than the second portion (FIGs 10-11; window 6; ¶62).
Regarding claim 20, Moburg modified by Ray and Dubrul teaches the thrombectomy device of claim 17, as set forth above, for the reasons set forth above.
Moburg teaches atherectomy catheter 2C wherein the first portion has a longer axial length than the second portion (FIGs 10-11; window 6; ¶62).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wallace et al., US 20190343538 (31 August 2021) teaches inverting thrombectomy apparatuses and methods of use.
Yee et al., US 20200306501 (1 October 2020) teaches enhanced flexibility neurovascular catheter.
Chung et al., US 20250195092 (19 June 2025, benefit to 15 December 2023) teaches systems and methods for removal of blood and thrombotic material.
Hanson, US 20250057548 (20 February 2025, benefit to 15 August 2023) teaches aspiration catheter with funnel tip.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERIE M POLAND whose telephone number is (703)756-1341. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm (CST).
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.
/CHERIE M POLAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights