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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/5/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 11-13, 18-23, and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,296,181 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, US 12,296,181 B2 discloses a torque shaft assembly, comprising: an inner coil including a wire coil extending about a central axis in a first helical direction over a coil length between a proximal coil end and a distal coil end (claims 1 and 21); and an outer cable including a plurality of outer strands extending helically around the inner coil in a second helical direction from the proximal coil end to the distal coil end, wherein the plurality of outer strands extend in a predominantly axial direction (claims 1 and 21).
Regarding claim 2, US 12,296,181 B2 discloses the outer cable is swaged onto the inner coil between the proximal coil end and the distal coil end such that an outer surface of the outer cable is flattened and the wire coil bulges into circumferential gaps between the plurality of outer strands to form an annular wall around a central lumen (claims 1 and 21).
Regarding claim 3, US 12,296,181 B2 discloses the inner coil has a single wire coil (claims 1 and 21).
Regarding claim 4, US 12,296,181 B2 discloses the single wire coil includes a plurality of turns in contact with each other to form a stacked coil tube (claim 9).
Regarding claim 5, US 12,296,181 B2 discloses the first helical direction is opposite to the second helical direction (claims 7 and 26).
Regarding claim 7, US 12,296,181 B2 discloses the outer cable is swaged over an entirety of the coil length (claim 3).
Regarding claim 8, US 12,296,181 B2 discloses the outer cable is swaged over only a portion of the coil length (claim 4).
Regarding claim 9, US 12,296,181 B2 discloses the plurality of outer strands are in contact with each other such that the outer cable is tubular (claim 8).
Regarding claim 10, US 12,296,181 B2 discloses an outer sleeve containing the inner coil and the outer cable (claim 21).
Regarding claim 11, US 12,296,181 B2 discloses the outer sleeve is a tubular component having an inner diameter equal to an outer diameter of the outer cable (claim 22).
Regarding claim 12, US 12,296,181 B2 discloses the outer sleeve is attached to the outer cable at a proximal sleeve end and a distal sleeve end (claim 23).
Regarding claim 13, US 12,296,181 B2 discloses biostimulator transport system, comprising: a handle (claim 11); a docking cap having a docking cavity to receive an attachment feature of a biostimulator (claim 11); and a torque shaft having a proximal shaft end coupled to the handle and a distal shaft end coupled to the docking cap, wherein the torque shaft includes an inner coil including a wire coil extending about a central axis in a first helical direction over a coil length between the proximal shaft end and the distal shaft end, and an outer cable including a plurality of outer strands extending helically around the inner coil in a second helical direction from the proximal shaft end to the distal shaft end, and wherein the plurality of outer strands extend in a predominantly axial direction (claim 11).
Regarding claim 14, US 12,296,181 B2 discloses the outer cable is swaged onto the inner coil between the proximal coil end and the distal coil end such that an outer surface of the outer cable is flattened and the wire coil bulges into circumferential gaps between the plurality of outer strands to form an annular wall around a central lumen (claim 11).
Regarding claim 15, US 12,296,181 B2 discloses a hypotube connecting the proximal shaft end to the handle (claim 12).
Regarding claim 16, US 12,296,181 B2 discloses the handle includes a proximal handle portion that is rotationally moveable relative to a distal handle portion, and wherein the proximal handle portion is coupled to the hypotube (claim 13).
Regarding claim 17, US 12,296,181 B2 discloses a method, comprising: loading an outer cable over an inner coil to form a torque shaft having a proximal shaft end and a distal shaft end (claim 18), wherein the inner coil includes a wire coil extending about a central axis in a first helical direction (claim 18), wherein the outer cable includes a plurality of outer strands extending helically around the inner coil in a second helical direction (claim 18), and wherein the plurality of outer strands extend in a predominantly axial direction; and welding the outer cable to the inner coil at the proximal shaft end and the distal shaft end (claim 18).
Regarding claim 18, US 12,296,181 B2 discloses swaging the outer cable onto the inner coil between the proximal shaft end and the distal shaft end such that an outer surface of the outer cable is flattened and the wire coil bulges into circumferential gaps between the plurality of outer strands to form an annular wall around a central lumen (claim 18).
Regarding claim 19, US 12,296,181 B2 discloses attaching the proximal shaft end to a hypotube (claim 19).
Regarding claim 20, US 12,296,181 B2 discloses mounting a docking cap on the distal shaft end, wherein the docking cap has a docking cavity to receive an attachment feature of a biostimulator (claim 20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the proximal coil end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the distal coil end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Webb (US 1,952,301).
Regarding claim 1, Webb discloses (Figures 1 and 3) a torque shaft assembly, comprising: an inner coil including a wire coil (1) extending about a central axis in a first helical direction over a coil length between a proximal coil end and a distal coil end; and an outer cable (2) including a plurality of outer strands (four) extending helically around the inner coil in a second helical direction from the proximal coil end to the distal coil end, wherein the plurality of outer strands extend in a predominantly axial direction.
Regarding claim 3, Webb discloses (Figures 1 and 3) the inner coil (1) has a single wire coil.
Regarding claim 4, Webb discloses (Figures 1 and 3) the single wire coil (1) includes a plurality of turns in contact with each other to form a stacked coil tube.
Regarding claim 5, Webb discloses (Figure 1) the first helical direction is opposite to the second helical direction (lines 65-68).
Regarding claim 9, Webb discloses (Figures 1 and 3) the plurality of outer strands are in contact with each other such that the outer cable (2) is tubular.
Regarding claim 10, Webb discloses an outer sleeve (3 and 4) containing the inner coil (1) and the outer cable (2). Figure 3 depicts the inner coil (1) and the outer cable (2) contained within the outer sleeve.
Regarding claim 11, Webb discloses (Figure 3) that the outer sleeve (3 and 4) is a tubular component (Figure 3 shows that layers 3 and 4 together form a "tubular component") having an inner diameter (inner surface of 3) equal to an outer diameter of the outer cable (2).
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.
Claims 2, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb (US 1,952,301) in view of Joline (US 1,649,310).
Regarding claim 2, Webb discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Webb fails to disclose the outer cable is swaged onto the inner coil between the proximal coil end and the distal coil end such that an outer surface of the outer cable is flattened and the wire coil bulges into circumferential gaps between the plurality of outer strands to form an annular wall around a central lumen.
In the same field of endeavor, Joline teaches a flexible shaft including a plurality of strands extending helically in different directions creating crossed strands. Joline teaches that swaging/die-drawing work forces the strands to reduce in diameter. Jolene teaches (Figures 2 and 3) that the plurality of strands have a pre-swaged cross- sectional profile that is different than a post swaged cross-sectional profile. Joline teaches that the strands are distorted to effect the embedding of the relatively crossed strands into each other to prevent relative slipping or uncoiling of the strands (page 2, lines 77-88).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to swage the outer coil disclosed by Webb onto the inner coil such that the wire coil bulges (distorts) into circumferential gaps between the plurality of outer strands to form an annular wall around a central lumen, as taught by Joline. This modification would effect the embedding of the relatively crossed strands into each other to prevent relative slipping or uncoiling of the strands (page 2, lines 77-88).
Regarding claim 7, Webb discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Webb fails to disclose that the outer cable is swaged over an entirety of the coil length.
In the same field of endeavor, Joline teaches a flexible shaft including a plurality of strands extending helically in different directions creating crossed strands. Joline teaches that swaging/die-drawing work forces the strands to reduce in diameter. Jolene teaches (Figures 2 and 3) that the plurality of strands have a pre-swaged cross- sectional profile that is different than a post swaged cross-sectional profile. Joline teaches that the strands are distorted to effect the embedding of the relatively crossed strands into each other to prevent relative slipping or uncoiling of the strands (page 2, lines 77-88).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to swage the outer cable over an entirety of the coil length, to produce a torque shaft with that prevent relative slipping or uncoiling of the outer cable and the inner coil.
Regarding claim 8, Webb discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Webb fails to fails to disclose that the outer cable is swaged over only a portion of the coil length.
In the same field of endeavor, Joline teaches a flexible shaft including a plurality of strands extending helically in different directions creating crossed strands. Joline teaches that swaging/die-drawing work forces the strands to reduce in diameter. Jolene teaches (Figures 2 and 3) that the plurality of strands have a pre-swaged cross- sectional profile that is different than a post swaged cross-sectional profile. Joline teaches that the strands are distorted to effect the embedding of the relatively crossed strands into each other to prevent relative slipping or uncoiling of the strands (page 2, lines 77-88). Joline further teaches that ends of the flexible shaft are swaged so that the strands will be inter-engaged and cling together.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to swage the outer cable over only a portion of the coil length, as further taught by Joline. This modification would ensure that the ends of the shaft cling together and do not uncoil (page 1, lines 40-49).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb (US 1,952,301) in view of Hodgson (US 5,103,543).
Regarding claim 6, Webb discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Webb fails to explicitly disclose the first helical direction is a right hand direction, and wherein the second helical direction is a left hand direction.
In the same field of endeavor, Hodgson teaches (Figure 1) a torque transmitter with an inner coil including a wire coil (12) extending about a central axis in a right hand direction (clockwise) over a coil length between a proximal coil end and a distal coil end; and an outer cable (14) extending helically around the inner coil in a left hand direction (counterclockwise) the proximal coil end to the distal coil end (Column 2, lines 32-43).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of he claimed invention to extend the inner coil in a right hand direction and the plurality of outer strands in a left hand direction, as Hodgson teaches a right hand (clockwise) wind and a left hand (counterclockwise) wind are opposite helical directions that are well known in the art.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb (US 1,952,301) in view of Boucher et al. (US 2018/0339139 A1) (“Boucher”).
Regarding claim 12, Webb discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Webb fails to explicitly disclose that the outer sleeve is attached to the outer cable at a proximal sleeve end and a distal sleeve end.
In the same field of endeavor, Boucher teaches (Figures 1a and 1b) a torque shaft assembly (10), comprising: an inner coil including a wire coil (14) extending about a central axis in a first helical direction over a coil length between a proximal coil end and a distal coil end; an outer cable (16) including a plurality of outer strands extending helically around the inner coil in a second helical direction from the proximal coil end to the distal coil end; and an outer sleeve (20) containing the inner coil and the outer cable. Boucher teaches that the outer sleeve is attached to the outer cable at a proximal sleeve end and a distal sleeve end to secure the combination of coil layers together (paragraph 0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer sleeve disclosed by Webb to be attached to the outer cable at a proximal sleeve end and a distal sleeve end in order to secure the combination of coil layers together (Boucher, paragraph 0031).
Claims 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kariniemi et al. (US 2012/0245668 A1) (“Kariniemi”) in view of Webb (US 1,952,301).
Regarding claim 13, Kariniemi discloses (Figures 1-12) transport system capable of delivering a biostimulator , comprising: a handle (60, 120); a docking cap (100) having a docking cavity (Figure 9) capable of receiving an attachment feature of a biostimulator (paragraph 0061); and a torque shaft having a proximal shaft end (42) coupled to the handle and a distal shaft end coupled to the docking cap (paragraph 0061), wherein the torque shaft includes an inner coil including a wire coil (46) extending about a central axis in a first helical direction (D1) over a coil length between the proximal shaft end and the distal shaft end, and an outer cable (48) extending helically around the inner coil in a second helical direction (D2) from the proximal shaft end to the distal shaft end, and wherein the outer cable extends in a predominantly axial direction.
Kariniemi fails to disclose that the outer cable includes a plurality of outer strands.
Webb teaches (Figures 1 and 3) a torque shaft assembly, comprising: an inner coil including a wire coil (1) extending about a central axis in a first helical direction over a coil length between a proximal coil end and a distal coil end; and an outer cable (2) including a plurality of outer strands (four) extending helically around the inner coil in a second helical direction from the proximal coil end to the distal coil end, wherein the plurality of outer strands extend in a predominantly axial direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the torque shaft disclosed by Kariniemi such that the outer cable includes a plurality of outer strands, as taught by Webb. This modification would result in a torque shaft that combines a high torsional rigidity and small phase lag under load with low power losses and distributed stress (Webb, lines 32-47).
Regarding claim 15, Kariniemi as modified by Webb teaches (Kariniemi, Figure 3) a hypotube (proximal end of 60 forms a tube where proximal shaft 42 is attached) connecting the proximal shaft end to the handle.
Regarding claim 16, Kariniemi as modified by Webb teaches that the handle includes a proximal handle portion (120) that is rotationally moveable relative to a distal handle portion (60), and wherein the proximal handle portion is coupled to the hypotube (paragraphs 0064-0065).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kariniemi et al. (US 2012/0245668 A1) (“Kariniemi”) in view of Webb (US 1,952,301) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Joline (US 1,649,310).
Regarding claim 14, Kariniemi in view of Webb teaches the invention substantially as claimed. However, the combined teaching fails to teach the outer cable is swaged onto the inner coil between the proximal coil end and the distal coil end such that an outer surface of the outer cable is flattened and the wire coil bulges into circumferential gaps between the plurality of outer strands to form an annular wall around a central lumen.
Joline teaches a flexible shaft including a plurality of strands extending helically in different directions creating crossed strands. Joline teaches that swaging/die-drawing work forces the strands to reduce in diameter. Jolene teaches (Figures 2 and 3) that the plurality of strands have a pre-swaged cross-sectional profile that is different than a post swaged cross-sectional profile. Joline teaches that the strands are distorted to effect the embedding of the relatively crossed strands into each other to prevent relative slipping or uncoiling of the strands (page 2, lines 77-88).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to swage the outer coil taught by Kariniemi in view of Webb onto the inner coil such that the wire coil bulges (distorts) into circumferential gaps between the plurality of outer strands to form an annular wall around a central lumen, as taught by Joline. This modification would effect the embedding of the relatively crossed strands into each other to prevent relative slipping or uncoiling of the strands (page 2, lines 77-88).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kariniemi et al. (US 2012/0245668 A1) (“Kariniemi”) in view of Webb (US 1,952,301) and Mitelberg et al. (US 2016/0066947 A1) (“Mitelberg”).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Kariniemi discloses (Figures 1-12) a method comprising: loading an outer cable (48) over an inner coil (46) to form a torque shaft (40) having a proximal shaft end (42) and a distal shaft end (44), wherein the inner coil includes a wire coil extending about a central axis in a first helical direction (D1), wherein the outer cable extends helically around the inner coil in a second helical direction (D2), and wherein the outer cable extends in a predominantly axial direction; and welding the outer cable to the inner coil at the distal shaft end (paragraph 0061). Kariniemi discloses (Figures 4 and 5) attaching the proximal shaft end (42) to a hypotube (proximal end of 60 forms a hypotube that proximal shaft end is attached to).
Kariniemi fails to disclose that the outer cable includes a plurality of outer strands. Kariniemi also fails to explicitly disclose welding the outer cable to the inner coil at the proximal shaft end.
Webb teaches (Figures 1 and 3) a torque shaft assembly, comprising: an inner coil including a wire coil (1) extending about a central axis in a first helical direction over a coil length between a proximal coil end and a distal coil end; and an outer cable (2) including a plurality of outer strands (four) extending helically around the inner coil in a second helical direction from the proximal coil end to the distal coil end, wherein the plurality of outer strands extend in a predominantly axial direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the torque shaft disclosed by Kariniemi such that the outer cable includes a plurality of outer strands, as taught by Webb. This modification would result in a torque shaft that combines a high torsional rigidity and small phase lag under load with low power losses and distributed stress (Webb, lines 32-47).
Mitelberg teaches (Figures 1-11) a device with a torque shaft (14). Mitelberg teaches that the torque shaft comprises one or more welds (17, 18, 61) to secure a hollow cable (94) to an inner coil (96). Mitelberg teaches that the welds are positioned at the proximal shaft end and the distal shaft end of the torque shaft to maximize flexibility of the shaft prevent unraveling (paragraphs 0041-0042). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer cable to be welded to the inner coil at the proximal shaft end, so that the torque shaft has welds at both the proximal shaft end and the distal shaft end, as taught by Mitelberg. This modification will prevent unraveling of the coils and will maximize flexibility of the torque shaft (Mitelberg, paragraphs 0041-0042).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kariniemi et al. (US 2012/0245668 A1) (“Kariniemi”) in view of Webb (US 1,952,301) and Mitelberg et al. (US 2016/0066947 A1) (“Mitelberg”) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Joline (US 1,649,310).
Regarding claim 18, Kariniemi in view of Webb and Mitelberg teaches the invention substantially as claimed. However, the combined teaching fails to teach swaging the outer cable onto the inner coil between the proximal shaft end and the distal shaft end such that an outer surface of the outer cable is flattened and the wire coil bulges into circumferential gaps between the plurality of outer strands to form an annular wall around a central lumen.
Joline teaches a flexible shaft including a plurality of strands extending helically in different directions creating crossed strands. Joline teaches that swaging/die-drawing work forces the strands to reduce in diameter. Jolene teaches (Figures 2 and 3) that the plurality of strands have a pre-swaged cross-sectional profile that is different than a post swaged cross-sectional profile. Joline teaches that the strands are distorted to effect the embedding of the relatively crossed strands into each other to prevent relative slipping or uncoiling of the strands (page 2, lines 77-88).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to swage the outer coil taught by Kariniemi in view of Webb and Mitelberg onto the inner coil such that the wire coil bulges (distorts) into circumferential gaps between the plurality of outer strands to form an annular wall around a central lumen, as taught by Joline. This modification would effect the embedding of the relatively crossed strands into each other to prevent relative slipping or uncoiling of the strands (page 2, lines 77-88).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kariniemi et al. (US 2012/0245668 A1) (“Kariniemi”) in view of Webb (US 1,952,301) and Mitelberg et al. (US 2016/0066947 A1) (“Mitelberg”) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Schmidt et al. (US 2015/0051614 A1) (“Schmidt”).
Regarding claim 20, Kariniemi as modified by Webb and Mitelberg teaches (Kariniemi, Figure 9) mounting a docking cap (100) on the distal shaft end (44). The combined teaching teaches that the docking cap has a docking cavity to receive and alignment feature of a vascular device (paragraph 0061). The combined teaching fails to explicitly teach that the docking cap receives an attachment feature of a biostimulator. However, Kariniemi discloses that it is understood that embodiments of the delivery device may be configured for use with various kinds of vascular devices that are used in different intravascular procedures (paragraph 0044).
Schmidt teaches (Figure 3) a shaft (166) with a docking cap (168) on its distal end. Schmidt teaches that the docking cap has a docking cavity that receives a docking member (20) of a vascular biostimulator (10) to allow the biostimulator to be engaged/retrieved/repositioned (paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the docking cap taught by Kariniemi in view of Webb and Mitelberg to receive an attachment feature of a biostimulator, as taught by Schmidt. Kariniemi discloses that it is understood that embodiments of the delivery device may be configured for use with various kinds of vascular devices that are used in different intravascular procedures (paragraph 0044). This modification would deliver a biostimulator that provides electrical stimulation to heart tissue to cause the heart to contract and thus pump blood through the vascular system (Schmidt, paragraph 0024).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN D KNAUSS whose telephone number is (571)272-8641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:30-8:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.D.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/DIANE D YABUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights