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 .
Detailed Action
This is in response to the amendment filed 03/07/2025.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 19 recites providing an anastomosis kit according to claim 10; determining an initial mating distance requirement for a given anastomosis procedure; selecting an initial set of matched magnetic compression anastomosis devices from the anastomosis kit based on the initial mating distance requirement for the given anastomosis procedure with the remaining sets of matched devices available as backup; and upon determining that a different mating distance is required, selecting one of the backup sets of matched devices according to the different mating distance requirement.
The Office agrees the art of record fails to teach or suggest these features.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious U.S. Patent Publication Number 2013/0253550 (Beisel) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2002/0116018 (Stevens), U.S. Patent Publication Number 2005/0080439 (Carson et al.)
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4-8 Beisel discloses as shown in Figures 2A, 2b 25 an anastomosis system comprising: a set of matched magnetic compression anastomosis devices (first and a second magnetic structure, see paragraph [0098]) having different magnetic polar arrangements, wherein the of set of matched magnetic compression anastomosis devices comprises at least: a set of matched devices having a maximum effective mating distance relative to other sets of matched devices; a set of matched devices having a minimum effective mating distance relative to other sets of matched devices; and at least one set of matched devices having an effective mating distance between the maximum effective mating distance and the minimum effective mating distance, wherein the magnetic compression anastomosis devices are self-assembling magnetic compression anastomosis devices, .
Beisel fails to disclose the system includes a plurality of matched sets of magnetic compression anastomosis devices having different magnetic polar arrangements, in which different sets of matched magnetic compression anastomosis devices provide different relative attractive forces over a distance when the matched devices are brought together for anastomosis such that interaction between anastomosis devices can be tuned for a given anastomosis procedure.
Stevens, from the same filed of endeavor teaches a similar anastomosis system as shown in Figures 3A, 3B where the system includes a plurality of matched sets of devices with varying configurations, in which different sets of anastomosis devices provide different forces, with the one or more sets of stronger-attracting matched devices available as backup if difficulties joining tissues are encountered during the procedure, for the purpose of addressing multiple particular applications. See paragraph [0091].
Carson et al., from the same field of endeavor teaches a similar system as shown in Figure 9A, where it is known to vary a matched set of magnetic compression anastomosis devices attractive force and polar configurations (location of flux) for the purpose of providing sufficient magnetic force to form the anastomosis and avoid causing necrosis based on the size of the vessel. See paragraphs [0193], [0194].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Beisel to include a plurality of matched sets of magnetic compression anastomosis devices (at least three sets) with varying magnetic polar configurations, in which different sets of matched magnetic compression anastomosis devices provide different relative attractive forces over a distance in order to configure the system to address multiple particular applications by providing sufficient magnetic force to form the anastomosis and avoid causing necrosis based on the size of the vessel.
Note: the Office interprets Beisel (as modified) as disclosing the plurality of sets of matched magnetic compression anastomosis devices with varying magnetic polar configurations and capable of providing different relative attractive forces over a distance when the paired devices are brought together for anastomosis because paragraph [0131] of Beisel discloses the orientation of the polarities of each device is varied along its length: “In most embodiments, the polarities of adjoining segments will be opposite, as shown in FIG. 25, however this need not be the case. As shown in FIG. 25, one pole (e.g., north) is shaded, while the other pole (e.g., south) is not.”
Thus, the attractive forces of the plurality of magnetic compression anastomosis devices disclosed by Beisel (as modified) are “different” (as required by the claim) because they are oriented in different directions.
So modified the Office interprets Beisel in view of Stevens and Carson as disclosing wherein the plurality of sets of matched magnetic compression anastomosis devices comprises at least: a set of matched devices having a maximum effective mating distance relative to the other sets of matched devices; a set of matched devices having a minimum effective mating distance relative to the other sets of matched devices; and at least one set of matched devices having an effective mating distance between the maximum effective mating distance and the minimum effective mating distance, wherein the matched devices of each set of matched devices have complementary magnet arrangements.
Any three matched sets would necessarily having a maximum effective mating distance relative to the other sets of matched devices, having a minimum effective mating distance relative to the other sets of matched devices, and an effective mating distance between the maximum effective mating distance and the minimum effective mating distance
Regarding claim 3, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Beisel in view of Stevens and Carson such that wherein the at least one set of matched devices having an effective mating distance between the maximum effective mating distance and the minimum effective mating distance comprises a plurality of sets of matched devices having different effective mating distances between the maximum effective mating distance and the minimum effective mating distance because it would only require the duplication of parts without changing how the device operates. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
Regarding claim 9, Beisel discloses wherein the plurality of magnetic compression anastomosis devices comprises magnetic compression anastomosis devices of different sizes. See paragraph [0154].
Regarding claims 10, 11, 14-17 Beisel discloses as shown in Figures 2A, 2b 25 an anastomosis kit comprising: a set of matched magnetic compression anastomosis devices (first and a second magnetic structure, see paragraph [0098]) having different magnetic polar arrangements, wherein the of set of matched magnetic compression anastomosis devices comprises at least: a set of matched devices having a maximum effective mating distance relative to other sets of matched devices; a set of matched devices having a minimum effective mating distance relative to other sets of matched devices; and at least one set of matched devices having an effective mating distance between the maximum effective mating distance and the minimum effective mating distance, wherein the magnetic compression anastomosis devices are self-assembling magnetic compression anastomosis devices, .
Beisel fails to disclose the system includes a plurality of matched sets of magnetic compression anastomosis devices having different magnetic polar arrangements, in which different sets of matched magnetic compression anastomosis devices provide different relative attractive forces over a distance when the matched devices are brought together for anastomosis such that interaction between anastomosis devices can be tuned for a given anastomosis procedure.
Stevens, from the same filed of endeavor teaches a similar anastomosis system as shown in Figures 3A, 3B where the system includes a plurality of matched sets of devices with varying configurations, in which different sets of anastomosis devices provide different forces, with the one or more sets of stronger-attracting matched devices available as backup if difficulties joining tissues are encountered during the procedure, for the purpose of addressing multiple particular applications. See paragraph [0091].
Carson et al., from the same field of endeavor teaches a similar system as shown in Figure 9A, where it is known to vary a matched set of magnetic compression anastomosis devices attractive force and polar configurations (location of flux) for the purpose of providing sufficient magnetic force to form the anastomosis and avoid causing necrosis based on the size of the vessel. See paragraphs [0193], [0194].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Beisel to include a plurality of matched sets of magnetic compression anastomosis devices (at least three sets) with varying magnetic polar configurations, in which different sets of matched magnetic compression anastomosis devices provide different relative attractive forces over a distance in order to configure the system to address multiple particular applications by providing sufficient magnetic force to form the anastomosis and avoid causing necrosis based on the size of the vessel.
Note: the Office interprets Beisel (as modified) as disclosing the plurality of sets of matched magnetic compression anastomosis devices with varying magnetic polar configurations and capable of providing different relative attractive forces over a distance when the paired devices are brought together for anastomosis because paragraph [0131] of Beisel discloses the orientation of the polarities of each device is varied along its length: “In most embodiments, the polarities of adjoining segments will be opposite, as shown in FIG. 25, however this need not be the case. As shown in FIG. 25, one pole (e.g., north) is shaded, while the other pole (e.g., south) is not.”
Thus, the attractive forces of the plurality of magnetic compression anastomosis devices disclosed by Beisel (as modified) are “different” (as required by the claim) because they are oriented in different directions.
So modified the Office interprets Beisel in view of Stevens and Carson as disclosing wherein the plurality of sets of matched magnetic compression anastomosis devices comprises at least: a set of matched devices having a maximum effective mating distance relative to the other sets of matched devices; a set of matched devices having a minimum effective mating distance relative to the other sets of matched devices; and at least one set of matched devices having an effective mating distance between the maximum effective mating distance and the minimum effective mating distance, wherein the matched devices of each set of matched devices have complementary magnet arrangements.
Any three matched sets would necessarily having a maximum effective mating distance relative to the other sets of matched devices, having a minimum effective mating distance relative to the other sets of matched devices, and an effective mating distance between the maximum effective mating distance and the minimum effective mating distance
Regarding claim 12, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Beisel in view of Stevens and Carson such that wherein the at least one set of matched devices having an effective mating distance between the maximum effective mating distance and the minimum effective mating distance comprises a plurality of sets of matched devices having different effective mating distances between the maximum effective mating distance and the minimum effective mating distance because it would only require the duplication of parts without changing how the device operates. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
Regarding claim 18, Beisel discloses wherein the plurality of magnetic compression anastomosis devices comprises magnetic compression anastomosis devices of different sizes. See paragraph [0154].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD G LOUIS whose telephone number is 571-270-1965. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9:30 – 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Jackie Ho at 571-272-4696. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD G LOUIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights