DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 21, 22, 25-31 and 34-40 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2008/0255642 A1 to Zarins (Zarins) in view of US 6,097,985 to Kasevich et al. (Kasevich).
Regarding claims 21, 22 and 34, Zarins teaches a catheter apparatus (Figs. 5A-11) comprising an elongated body (Figs. 5A-11) configured to be positioned within a blood vessel ([0035] and [0063-0120]) of a patient, an expandable element (see for example 304. Fig. 5A-8B) coupled to a distal portion of the elongated body, and a microwave transmitting element ([0040]) carried by the expandable member, wherein the transmitting element is configured to directionally radiate energy to thermally affect a nerve that is proximate the blood vessel while the expandable element is in an expanded configuration within the blood vessel ([0064]), and wherein, while in the expanded configuration, the expandable element is configured to allow passive blood flow cooling of non-target intima and media while the transmitting element is directionally radiating energy ([0071-0072]). However, Zarins fails to teach, wherein the transmitting element is radially inward of the expandable element or wherein
Kasevich teaches an analogous microwave applicator and system (title) including a catheter having an inflatable balloon in fluid communication with an inflation source, and an antenna configured to extend through an inner lumen or the catheter and having a radiating element within the inflatable balloon to transmit electromagnetic energy toward a desired area of tissue (Col. 3, lines 22-27). For example, Fig. 1 includes a microwave antenna system (10) including a collinear antenna array (12) deployed with a catheter (14). The catheter includes a balloon portion (16) within which resides the antenna array (Fig. 2). Fluid is introduced into the balloon and can serve as a heat sink for cooling the antenna positioned therein (Col. 3, lines 28-40). Additionally, each colinear array includes a radiating element at the distal end of the array and a coaxial transmission line extending from the radiating element to the proximal end of the array to connect each antenna to the electromagnetic source. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized the antenna configuration of Kasevich as an obvious matter of engineering design choice as Kasevich teaches that the invention has numerous advantages including precisely focusing the direction of transmitted electromagnetic energy, thus allowing well-controlled heating of a target area without substantially heating adjacent non-target tissues and that because of this the instruments require relatively low amounts of power to deliver a high degree of thermal dosimetry, thus ensuring full thermal coverage with a sharp cut-off of the thermal envelope (Col. 1, line 57-Col. 2, line 5).
Regarding claim 25, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 21, but not specifically wherein to directionally radiate energy, the transmitting element is configured to directionally radiate the energy such that the energy is maximal in a plane perpendicular to the transmitting element (Kasevich does teach directing the energy toward desired areas of tissue). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been apprised of the omni-directional capabilities of microwave antennas and utilized that knowledge to treat a desired target tissue area (desired target tissue treatment is taught in both Zarins and Kasevich). Therefore, it is asserted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have configured the antenna to omni-directionally radiate the microwave energy so as to treat all desired target tissue as an obvious matter of engineering design choice as directing energy to desired tissue to affect a desired target tissue is taught by both Kasevich and Zarins.
Regarding claim 26, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 21, but not wherein to directionally radiate energy, the transmitting element is configured to omni-directionally radiate the energy in a plane perpendicular to the transmitting element (Kasevich does teach directing the energy toward desired areas of tissue). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been apprised of the omni-directional capabilities of microwave antennas and utilized that knowledge to treat a desired target tissue area (desired target tissue treatment is taught in both Zarins and Kasevich). Therefore, it is asserted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have configured the antenna to omni-directionally radiate the microwave energy so as to treat all desired target tissue as an obvious matter of engineering design choice as directing energy to desired tissue to affect a desired target tissue is taught by both Kasevich and Zarins.
.
Regarding claim 27, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 21 as well as Zarins teaching wherein the expandable element is permeable ([0064]).
Regarding claim 28, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 21 as well as Zarins teaching wherein the expandable element comprises a plurality of filaments including at least three filaments (see for example Fig. 5B and [0064]).
Regarding claim 29, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 21 as well as Zarins teaching wherein the expandable element comprises an expandable cage, an expandable basket, or expandable prongs ([0064]).
Regarding claim 30, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 21 as well as Zarins teaching wherein the expandable element is configured to expand within the blood vessel to center the transmitting element within the blood vessel ([0065]).
Regarding claim 31, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 21 as well as Zarins teaching wherein the expandable element is configured to expand within the blood vessel to position the transmitting element within the blood vessel without fully occluding blood flow through the blood vessel ([0071-0072]).
Regarding claim 35, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 21 as well as Zarins teaching wherein the transmitting element is configured to dielectrically heat the nerve to induce necrosis in the nerve ([0040-0042, 0044, 0075, 0091]).
Regarding claim 36, Zarins in view of Kasevich teaches a system comprising the catheter apparatus of claim 21 (see above rejection) as well as Zarins teaching at least one temperature sensor ([0056]) configured to sense a temperature of at least one of the transmitting element or tissue of the patient ([0047]) and a medical device (110 electrically coupled with processor 114) configured to alter at least one of the active cooling of the transmitting element or the energy delivered by the transmitting element based on the sensed temperature ([0053]).
Regarding claims 37 and 38, Zarins teaches a catheter apparatus (Figs. 5A-11) comprising an elongated body (Figs. 5A-11) configured to be positioned within a blood vessel ([0035] and [0063-0120]) of a patient, an expandable centering element (see for example 304. Fig. 5A-8B) coupled to a distal portion of the elongated body, and a microwave transmitting element ([0040]) carried by the expandable member, wherein the expandable centering element is configured to expand to center the transmitting element within the blood vessel ([0065]), wherein the transmitting element is configured to directionally radiate energy to thermally affect a nerve that is proximate the blood vessel while the expandable element is in an expanded configuration within the blood vessel ([0064]), and wherein, while in the expanded configuration, the expandable centering element is configured to allow passive blood flow cooling of non-target intima and media while the transmitting element is directionally radiating energy ([0071-0072]). However, Zarins fails to teach, wherein the transmitting element is radially inward of the expandable element.
Kasevich teaches an analogous microwave applicator and system (title) including a catheter having an inflatable balloon in fluid communication with an inflation source, and an antenna configured to extend through an inner lumen or the catheter and having a radiating element within the inflatable balloon to transmit electromagnetic energy toward a desired area of tissue (Col. 3, lines 22-27). For example, Fig. 1 includes a microwave antenna system (10) including a collinear antenna array (12) deployed with a catheter (14). The catheter includes a balloon portion (16) within which resides the antenna array (Fig. 2). Fluid is introduced into the balloon and can serve as a heat sink for cooling the antenna positioned therein (Col. 3, lines 28-40). Additionally, each colinear array includes a radiating element at the distal end of the array and a coaxial transmission line extending from the radiating element to the proximal end of the array to connect each antenna to the electromagnetic source. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized the antenna configuration of Kasevich as an obvious matter of engineering design choice as Kasevich teaches that the invention has numerous advantages including precisely focusing the direction of transmitted electromagnetic energy, thus allowing well-controlled heating of a target area without substantially heating adjacent non-target tissues and that because of this the instruments require relatively low amounts of power to deliver a high degree of thermal dosimetry, thus ensuring full thermal coverage with a sharp cut-off of the thermal envelope (Col. 1, line 57-Col. 2, line 5).
Regarding claim 39, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 37 as well as Zarins teaching wherein the expandable centering element is configured to expand within the blood vessel to position the transmitting element within the blood vessel without fully occluding blood flow through the blood vessel ([0071-0072]).
Regarding claim 40, Zarins teaches a catheter apparatus (Figs. 5A-11) comprising an elongated body (Figs. 5A-11) configured to be positioned within a blood vessel ([0035] and [0063-0120]) of a patient, an expandable element (see for example 304. Fig. 5A-8B) including a plurality of filaments (Fig. 5B) coupled to a distal portion of the elongated body, and a microwave transmitting element ([0040]) carried by the expandable member, wherein the expandable element is configured to expand to an expanded configuration within the blood vessel to position the transmitting element within the flood vessel ([0065]) without fully occluding blood flow through the blood vessel ([0071-0072]), wherein the transmitting element is configured to directionally radiate energy to thermally affect a nerve that is proximate the blood vessel while the expandable element is in an expanded configuration within the blood vessel ([0064]), and wherein, while in the expanded configuration, the expandable centering element is configured to allow passive blood flow cooling of non-target intima and media while the transmitting element is directionally radiating energy ([0071-0072]). However, Zarins fails to teach, wherein the transmitting element is radially inward of the expandable element.
Kasevich teaches an analogous microwave applicator and system (title) including a catheter having an inflatable balloon in fluid communication with an inflation source, and an antenna configured to extend through an inner lumen or the catheter and having a radiating element within the inflatable balloon to transmit electromagnetic energy toward a desired area of tissue (Col. 3, lines 22-27). For example, Fig. 1 includes a microwave antenna system (10) including a collinear antenna array (12) deployed with a catheter (14). The catheter includes a balloon portion (16) within which resides the antenna array (Fig. 2). Fluid is introduced into the balloon and can serve as a heat sink for cooling the antenna positioned therein (Col. 3, lines 28-40). Additionally, each colinear array includes a radiating element at the distal end of the array and a coaxial transmission line extending from the radiating element to the proximal end of the array to connect each antenna to the electromagnetic source. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized the antenna configuration of Kasevich as an obvious matter of engineering design choice as Kasevich teaches that the invention has numerous advantages including precisely focusing the direction of transmitted electromagnetic energy, thus allowing well-controlled heating of a target area without substantially heating adjacent non-target tissues and that because of this the instruments require relatively low amounts of power to deliver a high degree of thermal dosimetry, thus ensuring full thermal coverage with a sharp cut-off of the thermal envelope (Col. 1, line 57-Col. 2, line 5).
Claim 23 and 24 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zarins and Kasevich as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of US 8,409,188 B2 to Kim et al. (Kim).
Regarding claim 23, Zarins in view of Kasevich teaches the apparatus of claim 22, as well as wherein the microwave antenna comprises a coaxial antenna (28, 30 and 32) comprising a radiating element (22, 24, 26), but not dynamically varying length. Kim teaches an energy applicator including a length adjustment member adapted to allow for selective adjustment of the length of the radiating section (see for example the abstract) which allows for dynamic variation of the length of the radiating section so as to achieve the desired ablation field (Col. 5, lines 3-19). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have dynamically varied the length so as to allow for variation in length of the radiating section so as to achieve the desired ablation field as taught by Kim.
Regarding claim 24, Zarins in view of Kasevich and Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 23 as well as Kasevich teaching a shielding element configured to shield a portion of the radiating element to preferentially direct the radiated energy (Col. 6, lines 31-46). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized the antenna configuration of Kasevich as an obvious matter of engineering design choice as Kasevich teaches that the invention has numerous advantages including precisely focusing the direction of transmitted electromagnetic energy, thus allowing well-controlled heating of a target area without substantially heating adjacent non-target tissues and that because of this the instruments require relatively low amounts of power to deliver a high degree of thermal dosimetry, thus ensuring full thermal coverage with a sharp cut-off of the thermal envelope (Col. 1, line 57-Col. 2, line 5).
Claim 32 and 33 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zarins and Kasevich as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of US 2008/0269846 A1 to Burwell et al. (Burwell).
Regarding claim 32, Zarins in view of Kasevich teaches the apparatus of claim 21, but not wherein the expandable member is further configured to redirect blood flowing through the blood vessel while in an expanded configuration in the blood vessel. Burwell teaches a device for treatment of blood vessels (title) and states that it is beneficial to provide a bypass for blood flow occluded by the positioning balloon (31) of catheter (32) and that such a bypass for blood flow can be implemented by adding a bypass lumen to the distal end of the catheter, by configuring the balloon to leak, in the sense the balloon is configured to ensure that the catheter remains fixed in position, without fully occluding blood flow distal of the balloon, or the balloon has a cross sectional shape when inflated such that the balloon does not engage a full 360 degrees of the blood vessel wall. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Zarins to have utilized a positioning balloon as taught by Burwell so as to allow for blood flow occluded by the balloon. This is especially true as Zarins teaches positing and/or occluding. Therefore when only positioning is desired, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select a positioning element as taught by Burwell that allows for blood flow. This necessarily results in redirecting the blood flowing.
Regarding claim 33, Zarins in view of Kasevich teaches the apparatus of claim 21, but not wherein the expandable element is further configured to increase a velocity of blood flow near a wall of the blood vessel to enhance a rate of heat transfer between the wall and the blood flow. Burwell teaches a device for treatment of blood vessels (title) and states that it is beneficial to provide a bypass for blood flow occluded by the positioning balloon (31) of catheter (32) and that such a bypass for blood flow can be implemented by adding a bypass lumen to the distal end of the catheter, by configuring the balloon to leak, in the sense the balloon is configured to ensure that the catheter remains fixed in position, without fully occluding blood flow distal of the balloon, or the balloon has a cross sectional shape when inflated such that the balloon does not engage a full 360 degrees of the blood vessel wall. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Zarins to have utilized a positioning balloon as taught by Burwell so as to allow for blood flow occluded by the balloon. This is especially true as Zarins teaches positing and/or occluding. Therefore, when only positioning is desired, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select a positioning element as taught by Burwell that allows for blood flow. This necessarily results in increased velocity of flood flow near a wall of the blood vessel and as such will necessarily enhance a rate of heat transfer between the wall and the blood flow.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-24, 26, 30-35 and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 11-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,963,718.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent anticipate the claims of the application. Accordingly, the application claims are not patentably distinct from the patent claims. Here, the more specific patent claims encompass the broader application claims. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited in the preceding paragraph, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific narrow invention, applicant may not obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer.
Claims 27-29 and 36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 18 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,963,718 in view of Zarins.
Regarding claims 27-29, claim 1 of the patent teaches the limitations of claim 21 of the instant application (see above rejection), but not wherein the expandable element is permeable and comprises a plurality of filaments including at least three filaments, an expandable cage, an expandable basket, or expandable prongs. Zarins teaches an analogous device to that of the patent as well as wherein the positioning element (304) can be a balloon, an expandable wire basket, other mechanical expanders, or another suitable device for holding the transmitting element relative to the vessel and/or nerves ([0064]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the patent to select a balloon, an expandable wire basket, other mechanical expanders, or another suitable device to hold the transmitting element relative to the vessel and/or nerves as an obvious selection of a known positioning mechanism as an obvious matter of engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 36, claim 18 of the patent teaches the limitations of claim 36 of the instant application, but not a medical device configured to alter the energy delivered by the transmitting element based on the sensed temperature. Zarins teaches an analogous system to that of the patent as well as a medical device (110 electrically coupled with processor 114) configured to alter at least one of the active cooling of the transmitting element or the energy delivered by the transmitting element based on the sensed temperature ([0053]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the medical device as taught by Zarins to allow for providing the desired amount of energy to the target neural structures as taught by Zarins ([0053]).
Claims 25 and 37-39 and are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,963,718 in view of Kasevich.
Regarding claim 25, claim 1 of the patent teaches the limitations of claim 21 of the instant application (see rejection above), but not specifically wherein to directionally radiate, the transmitting element is configured to directionally radiate the emery such that the energy is maximal in a plane perpendicular to the transmitting element. Kasevich teaches an analogous apparatus (title “Microwave, Systems for Medical Hyperthermia, Thermotherapy and Diagnosis”) that is configured so that the transmitted energy, in aggregate, is directed toward a desired area of tissue to allow well-controlled heating thus requiring relatively lower amounts of power to deliver a high degree of thermal dosimetry, thus ensuring full thermal coverage with a sharp cut-off of the thermal envelope (Col. 1, line 57-Col. 2, line 5). While Kasevich does not specifically teach wherein to directionally radiate energy, the transmitting element is configured to directionally radiate the energy such that the energy is maximal in a plane perpendicular to the transmitting element (Kasevich does teach directing the energy toward desired areas of tissue). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been apprised of the omni-directional capabilities of microwave antennas and utilized that knowledge to treat a desired target tissue area (desired target tissue treatment is taught Kasevich). Therefore, it is asserted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have configured the antenna to omni-directionally radiate the microwave energy so as to treat all desired target tissue as an obvious matter of engineering design choice as directing energy to desired tissue to affect a desired target tissue is taught by Kasevich.
Regarding claims 37-39, claim 1 of the patent teaches the limitations of claim 37, but not specifically the transmitting element is configured to directionally radiate the emery such that the energy is maximal in a plane perpendicular to the transmitting element. Kasevich teaches an analogous apparatus (title “Microwave, Systems for Medical Hyperthermia, Thermotherapy and Diagnosis”) that is configured so that the transmitted energy, in aggregate, is directed toward a desired area of tissue to allow well-controlled heating thus requiring relatively lower amounts of power to deliver a high degree of thermal dosimetry, thus ensuring full thermal coverage with a sharp cut-off of the thermal envelope (Col. 1, line 57-Col. 2, line 5). While Kasevich does not specifically teach wherein to directionally radiate energy, the transmitting element is configured to directionally radiate the energy such that the energy is maximal in a plane perpendicular to the transmitting element (Kasevich does teach directing the energy toward desired areas of tissue). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been apprised of the omni-directional capabilities of microwave antennas and utilized that knowledge to treat a desired target tissue area (desired target tissue treatment is taught Kasevich). Therefore, it is asserted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have configured the antenna to omni-directionally radiate the microwave energy so as to treat all desired target tissue as an obvious matter of engineering design choice as directing energy to desired tissue to affect a desired target tissue is taught by both Kasevich.
Claims 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,963,718 in view of Zarins.
Claim 1 of the patent teaches the limitations of claim 21 of the instant application (see above rejection), but not wherein the expandable element comprises a plurality of filaments including at least three filaments. Zarins teaches an analogous device to that of the patent as well as wherein the positioning element (304) can be a balloon, an expandable wire basket, other mechanical expanders, or another suitable device for holding the transmitting element relative to the vessel and/or nerves ([0064]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the patent to select a balloon, an expandable wire basket, other mechanical expanders, or another suitable device to hold the transmitting element relative to the vessel and/or nerves as an obvious selection of a known positioning mechanism as an obvious matter of engineering design choice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-5845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Joanne M Rodden can be reached on (303) 297-4726. 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.
/KAITLYN E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
