DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“retrieval structure”, in claim 1. Although the limitation recites the word structure, the term “retrieval structure” does recite sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 1: Paragraph 0028 of the Specification discloses that the retrieval structure is any attachment structure that can be engaged by mechanical elements and/or using field forces (e.g. magnetic), or by other means, can be used.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected because it recites “wherein the first and second echogenic markers are operable to generate discrete, spaced ultrasound images of the first and second echogenic markers.” The limitation of the markers being operable to generate ultrasound images can be interpreted as the markers actively generating the imaging. However, based on the instant specifications, the markers are just made out of echogenic material such that the markers are discernable in ultrasonic imaging (Paragraph 0030 of instant specification). Thus, the markers are passive markers, and cannot actively do anything “to generate” discrete, space ultrasound images. Therefore the written description is insufficient in describing how the markers are operable to generate the discrete, spaced ultrasound images. For examination purposes, the examiner assumes the limitation to mean that the markers appear on the generated ultrasound image (by an ultrasound imaging system), and clearly marking/delineating a retrieval structure capture zone that is between the first and second echogenic markers.
Claims 2-8 are rejected because they inherit deficiencies by nature of their dependency on claim 1.
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 1-8 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 1 is rejected because it recites “wherein the first and second echogenic markers are operable to generate discrete, spaced ultrasound images of the first and second echogenic markers.” The limitation of the markers being operable to generate ultrasound images can be interpreted as the markers actively generating the imaging. However, based on the instant specifications, the markers are just made out of echogenic material such that the markers are discernable in ultrasonic imaging (Paragraph 0030 of instant specification). Thus, the markers are passive markers, and cannot actively do anything “to generate” discrete, space ultrasound images. For examination purposes, the examiner assumes the limitation to mean that the markers appear on the generated ultrasound image (by an ultrasound imaging system), and clearly marking/delineating a retrieval structure capture zone that is between the first and second echogenic markers.
Claims 2-8 are rejected because they inherit deficiencies by nature of their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 2 and 3 are also rejected because they recite “said distance”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For examination purposes, the examiner assumes said distance is the is the distance between the two markers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 29, and 30 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by US6,080,178 to “Meglin”.
Regarding claim 1, Meglin discloses a retrievable vascular filter (Vena cava filter, Title, with a configuration such that a tube 301, See Fig. 3, has a flared, dilated or contracted feature 307 at one end to facilitate gripping of the tube 301 for purposes of removing the filter after it has served its purpose, Col. 5, lines 25-29; and would read on a retrievable vascular filter), comprising.
a filter structure configured to trap embolic matter in a vascular vessel (filter may include one or more wires arranged to trap blood clots, Col. 2, Paragraph starting at line 26);
a retrieval structure (tube 301, See Fig. 3, has a flared, dilated or contracted feature 307 at one end to facilitate gripping of the tube 301 for purposes of removing the filter after it has served its purpose, Col. 5, lines 25-29) connected to the filter structure (See Fig. 3, Ref. 301 is connected to the wires 303), for retrieval of the vascular filter from the vessel (the gripping features 307 to facilitate removal, wherein removal reads on retrieving); and
a first echogenic marker on the filter and a second echogenic marker on the filter (the marker wire may include a plurality of echogenic markers, Col. 2, Paragraph starting at 26).
However, Meglin does not explicitly recite wherein the first and second echogenic markers are operable to generate discrete, spaced ultrasound images of the first and second echogenic markers.
Meglin further discloses welds, such as weld 121, that act as echogenic beads, such as echogenic bead 123 (See Fig. 1, and Col. 5, lines 1-6). Further, these echogenic welds are also seen in Fig. 3, connecting each loop 305 with wire strands 303. The two welds closest to tube 301 of Fig. 3, would read on the first and second echogenic markers, operable to generate discrete, spaced ultrasound images of the first and second echogenic markers demarking a retrieval structure capture zone between the first and second echogenic markers, since tube 301, and more particularly flared feature 307 of tube 301, is in between the first and second echogenic markers, and flared feature 307 facilitates gripping of the tube 301 for purposes of removing the filter, and therefore the region in between the two welds, that reads on the first and second echogenic markers, and includes flared feature 307 would read on the retrieval structure capture zone.
Regarding claim 2, Meglin disclose all the features of claim 1 above.
Meglin teaches where the filter is a Vena cava filter (Title, Abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Meglin disclose all the features of claim 1 above.
Meglin teaches at least a third echogenic marker, the third echogenic marker positioned on the filter structure (a weld point at the top of tube 301, See Fig. 3, which is similar to that of echogenic weld point 121 of Fig. 1, See Col. 5, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 7, Meglin disclose all the features of claim 1 above.
Meglin teaches wherein the filter structure comprises a plurality of struts (Col. 4, lines 31-33, ends of filter struts)
Regarding claim 29, Meglin disclose a retrievable vascular filter (Vena cava filter, Title, with a configuration such that a tube 301, See Fig. 3, has a flared, dilated or contracted feature 307 at one end to facilitate gripping of the tube 301 for purposes of removing the filter after it has served its purpose, Col. 5, lines 25-29; and would read on a retrievable vascular filter), comprising:
a filter structure configured to trap emboli in a vascular vessel (filter may include one or more wires arranged to trap blood clots, Col. 2, Paragraph starting at line 26),
and at least one echogenic marker positioned on the filter structure (the marker wire may include a plurality of echogenic markers, Col. 2, Paragraph starting at 26) and positioned to appose a wall of the vascular vessel when the filter is deployed in the vessel (Col. 5, Paragraph starting at line 35, Spring pressure pushes the split side ring 503 into the vessel wall when the filter is in the position desired, thus anchoring the filter against the pressure of blood flow through the filter).
Regarding claim 30, Meglin discloses all the features of claim 29 above.
Meglin discloses wherein the filter structure comprises a plurality of struts, and said at least one echogenic marker positioned on a strut of said plurality of struts (Col. 4, lines 31-33, These peripheral, sonographically conspicuous features can mark the ends of filter struts, wherein the sonographically conspicuous features read on the echogenic marker) .
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 through 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 3-5 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Meglin, alone.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Meglin discloses all the features of claim 1 above.
However, Meglin is silent in regards to the distance between the first and second echogenic markers, in the embodiment of Fig. 3.
However, Meglin does teach in separate embodiments of a marker wire with sonographically conspicuous features spaced about 1 cm apart (Col. 6, 47-48), and wherein the markers are used to aid in determining the position of the echogenic tube 301 (Col. 7, lines 10-37).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meglin's invention wherein Meglin uses the teachings from Figs. 15-17, and have a plurality of markers spaced 1 cm apart on the wires of the filter in Fig. 3, in order to use the markers to determine an orientation of the filter (Col. 7, Paragraph starting at line 10). Further, it would have been obvious to optimize the distance of sensors, since vascular filters are made in different sizes dependent upon which vasculature the filter is placed in. Applicant has not provided any reasons for unexpected results based on the claimed spacing. Therefore, the spacing of the markers would be merely routine optimization. (See MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Regarding claim 5, Meglin disclose all the features of claim 1 above.
Meglin teaches a filter hub (See Fig. 3, the top portion of tube 301 is a hub, with all the wires strands 303, extending away from the tube 301).
However, as interpreted in the claim 1 rejection above, the first and second echogenic markers are not located on the retrieval structure.
However, Meglin does disclose a weld point at the top of tube 301 (See Fig. 3), which is similar to that of echogenic weld point 121 of Fig. 1 (121 is an echogenic bead , Col. 5, lines 1-2). Additionally, tube 301, including the flared feature 307 is echogenic (“echogenic tube 301”, Col. 5, line 17).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meglin's invention wherein the first echogenic marker is on the hub, and the second echogenic marker is on the retrieval structure, in order to mark the ends of the filter structure (Col. 4, lines 24-34)
Claim 8 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Meglin, in view of US20080275488 to” Fleming”.
Regarding claim 8, Meglin disclose all the features of claim 1 above.
However, Meglin does not disclose wherein the retrieval structure comprises a hook.
Fleming teaches wherein the retrieval structure comprises a hook (Paragraph 0018, retrieval element, which is a hook).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meglin’s invention, wherein the retrieval structure comprises a hook as taught by Fleming, in order to facilitate retrieval of the medical filter (Paragraph 0018).
Claim 34, 66-75 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US20090182370 to Volobuyev et al. “Volobuyev”, in view of Meglin, and further in view of US5259837 to “Van Wormer”.
Regrading claim 34, Volobuyev discloses a method for the capture of a vascular filter positioned within a vascular vessel of a patient (0007, “A method for removing a filter from a blood vessel”), comprising:
introducing a retrieval device through a percutaneous access site spaced from the vascular filter (“the catheter 50 may be introduced into a patient via an incision into a major vein, such as the jugular vein, or artery, such as the femoral artery, and advanced through the blood vessel 10 to the vicinity of the filter 1”, Paragraph 0037);
advancing the retrieval device through the vascular system toward the vascular filter (the catheter 50 may be introduced into a patient via an incision into a major vein, such as the jugular vein, or artery, such as the femoral artery, and advanced through the blood vessel 10 to the vicinity of the filter 1”, Paragraph 0037);
visually observing an ultrasound-generated image of the vascular filter (clinician may advance an ultrasound imager through catheter 50 to determine if extraction is required or to inspect the filter in preparation for extraction, Paragraph 0037);
and actuating the retrieval device within the capture zone so as to capture the vascular filter (Paragraph 0043, snare the locator and anchor members of the blood filter).
Volobuyev additionally teaches observing/locating markers 54 and 55 (Paragraph 0036), wherein the markers are a distance L2 away from each other (Paragraph 0036), and would read on observing a second marker, longitudinally spaced a distance from the first marker. Volobuyev further teaches a marker on the hub material of the filter (Paragraph 0036),
However, Volobuyev does not discloses wherein the markers are ultrasound markers or echogenic, but instead ,the markers of Volobuyev are radiopaque, detectable by fluoroscopy (Volobuyev, 0036).
Meglin teaches different configurations of echogenic vena cava filter with a plurality of echogenic regions (Col. 2, line 67 – Col. 3, line 1, plurality of echogenic markers at a periphery of the filter). Meglin teaches using external sonography to implant a filter, Col. 6, Paragraph starting at line 18, in combination with internal sonography, in a renal vein, Col. 6, Paragraph starting at line 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Volobuyev's invention wherein all the markers of Volobuyev were ultrasonic or echogenic, as taught by Meglin, in order reduce the exposure of ionizing radiation and also to contrast agents which are sometimes introduced into a vessel to be image, wince ionizing radiation or contrast media is contraindicated for a significant number of patients, such as pregnant women (Col. 2, top paragraph).
Therefore, in the combination of Volobuyev and Meglin, the markers 54 and 55 are echogenic markers on the catheter, which can be detected by external ultrasound, as taught by Meglin. As the catheter arrives to the filter, observing via external ultrasound, one of markers 54 and 55, would read on the claimed observing of the third marker on the retrieval device.
Additionally, in the combination, the marker on the hub of the filter (Volobuyev, Paragraph 0036), would also be ultrasound and would be detectable to the ultrasound imager of Volobuyev (Volobuyev, Paragraph 0037). This visualization would read on visually observing an ultrasound-generated image of a first echogenic marker on the vascular filter.
Van Wormer teaches in a similar field of endeavor of introducing a balloon catheter into a vascular system and subjecting the catheter with ultrasound energy guide the catheter to a desired position (Col. 5, Paragraph starting at line 23) using two acoustic markers, one proximally and one distally (Col. 5, Paragraph at line 8). The position of the balloon catheter can be continually monitored and guided (Col. 5, Paragraph starting at line 23), and once at the target site can be activated/inflated (col. 3, lines 55-57).
Although, the two acoustic coils are on the catheter similar to the radiopaque coils on Volobuyev’s catheter, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as described by Volobuyev and Meglin, wherein the filter has two acoustic/echogenic markers, as taught by Van Wormer, in order to not only provide continual monitoring (Van Wormer, Col. 5, Paragraph starting at line 23), but also the determination of the distal and proximal margins marked by the coil (Van Wormer, Col. 6, lines 25-40).
Therefore, in the combination of Volobuyev, Meglin, and Van Wormer, the two acoustic markers would be placed on the filter to mark the distal and proximal boundaries of the filter’s activation zone, which would then allow the retrieval device to enter the activation zone, and under continual monitoring, perform its function of retrieval. The continual monitoring at the site of the filter once the catheter has reached would read on visually observing an ultrasound-generated image of a second echogenic marker on the vascular filter, the second echogenic marker longitudinally spaced a distance from the first echogenic marker and visually observing an ultrasound-generated image of a third echogenic marker within a capture zone between the first and second echogenic markers, the third echogenic marker on the retrieval device.
Regarding claim 66, the modifications of Volobuyev, Meglin, and Van Wormer teaches all the features of claim 34 above.
Volobuyev teaches wherein the retrieval device comprises a snare (Paragraph 0043, plurality of wires 73 may be configured to…snare the locator and anchor members of the blood filter).
Regarding claim 67, the modifications of Volobuyev, Meglin, and Van Wormer teaches all the features of claim 66 above.
Volobuyev teaches wherein said actuating comprises: closing a snare loop of the snare device within the capture zone so as to capture the vascular filter (See the series of images of Fig. 8, 9, and 10A and 10B, wherein the hooks snare hooks pulling at the hub would read on activating at the capture zone).
Regarding claim 68, the modifications of Volobuyev, Meglin, and Van Wormer teaches all the features of claim 34 above.
Volobuyev teaches wherein the vascular filter is a vena cava filter (Paragraph 0031, engage and retract a typical blood filter within a patient’s blood vessel, such as the vena cava).
Regarding claim 69 and 70, the modifications of Volobuyev, Meglin, and Van Wormer teaches all the features of claim 34 above.
Meglin teaches in embodiments of a marker wire with sonographically conspicuous features spaced about 1 cm apart (Col. 6, 47-48), and wherein the marker wire goes through the tube 301, See Figs. 15-17.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as described by Volobuyev, Meglin, and Van Wormer, wherein the marker spacing is about 1 cm/10mm apart, goes through the tube 310, in order to use the markers to an orientation of the filter (Col. 7, Paragraph starting at line 10). Further, it would have been obvious to optimize the distance of sensors, since vascular filters are made in different sizes dependent upon which vasculature the filter is placed in. Applicant has not provided any reasons for unexpected results based on the claimed spacing. Therefore, the spacing of the markers would be merely routine optimization. (See MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Regarding claim 71, the modifications of Volobuyev, Meglin, and Van Wormer teaches all the features of claim 34 above.
As disclosed in the claim 34 rejection above, Volobuyev teaches IVUS using the catheter.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Volobuyev, Meglin, and Van Wormer, wherein the ultrasound is of the third marker is transabdominal ultrasound in order to retrieve vascular filters near the thoracic region.
Regarding claims 72-75, Volobuyev, Meglin, and Van Wormer teaches all the features of claim 34 above.
Meglin teaches different configurations of echogenic vena cava filter with a plurality of echogenic regions ( Col. 2, line 67 – Col. 3, line 1, plurality of echogenic markers at a periphery of the filter). Meglin teaches using external sonography to implant a filter, Col. 6, Paragraph starting at line 18, in combination with internal sonography, in a renal vein, Col. 6, Paragraph starting at line 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Volobuyev's invention wherein all the markers of Volobuyev were ultrasonic or echogenic, as taught by Meglin, in order reduce the exposure of ionizing radiation and also to contrast agents which are sometimes introduced into a vessel to be image, wince ionizing radiation or contrast media is contraindicated for a significant number of patients, such as pregnant women (Col. 2, top paragraph).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Milton Truong whose telephone number is (571)272-2158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM, MON-FRI.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571) 270-1790. 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.
/MT/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights