Prior art

Based on a review of the references cited during the prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 11,589,880, the following patents and patent applications are identified as the most relevant prior art. The analysis focuses on their potential to anticipate the independent claims (1, 15, and 20) under 35 U.S.C. § 102. For a reference to anticipate a claim, it must disclose every element of that claim, either explicitly or inherently, in a single document.

The priority date for U.S. Patent No. 11,589,880 is December 20, 2007. All references discussed below predate this priority date.

---

Analysis of Most Relevant Prior Art

1. U.S. Patent No. 6,245,088 B1 (Fischell et al.)

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent No. 6,245,088 B1, "Apparatus and method for treating vascular occlusions," issued to Fischell et al.
• Publication Date: June 12, 2001 (Filed: July 23, 1999).
• Brief Description: Fischell describes a system for removing occlusive material, such as thrombus, from a blood vessel. The system consists of an aspiration catheter with a self-expanding, funnel-shaped distal tip made of a material like Nitinol mesh. The funnel is placed against the occlusion, and a vacuum is applied to aspirate the material. The system includes an external circuit with a pump and a filter to separate the thrombus from the aspirated blood, which is then returned to the patient via a separate venous return line.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1: This reference is highly relevant to Claim 1. Fischell teaches a method using a "first cannula" (the aspiration catheter) and a "second cannula" (the venous return line) with spaced-apart distal ends. It explicitly discloses a deployable "funnel-shaped tip" on the suction catheter. The method includes providing a suction force, capturing biological material (thrombus), filtering the removed fluid, and reinfusing it. The primary difference from the literal text of Claim 1 is the context. Fischell teaches the removal of a pre-existing occlusion, whereas Claim 1 specifies capturing "vegetative growth" that "becomes dislodged during a surgical procedure." While Fischell's method is a surgical procedure itself, it does not explicitly describe the prophylactic capture of material dislodged from a separate action. Therefore, while it teaches nearly all elements, it may not formally anticipate the specific "dislodged during" limitation of Claim 1.
  • Claims 15 & 20: Fischell does not disclose the specific surgical context of a "pacemaker lead removal." As this is a critical limitation of both independent claims 15 and 20, Fischell does not anticipate these claims.

2. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0112368 A1 (Jolly et al.)

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0112368 A1, "System and method for removing an occlusion from a blood vessel," by Jolly et al.
• Publication Date: May 17, 2007 (Filed: Nov. 16, 2005).
• Brief Description: Jolly discloses a system designed for removing large volumes of clot en bloc, particularly for treating deep vein thrombosis (DVT). The system uses an aspiration catheter with a large, expandable, funnel-shaped distal end. It also features a recirculation circuit where aspirated blood is passed through an external filter and pumped back into the patient via a return cannula to prevent significant blood loss.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1: Jolly provides a strong basis for anticipating Claim 1. It clearly describes a "first cannula" (aspiration catheter), a "second cannula" (return cannula), a deployable "funnel-shaped distal end," a suction force, and the reinfusion of filtered fluid. The context is removing an existing "occlusion," which is undesirable biological material. Similar to Fischell, the key distinction is that Jolly focuses on removing a pre-existing clot rather than capturing material that becomes dislodged during a different, concurrent procedure. A legal argument would center on whether removing a large clot inherently involves capturing pieces that may become dislodged during the removal process itself.
  • Claims 15 & 20: Jolly does not mention pacemaker lead removal. Therefore, it does not anticipate the specific methods recited in Claims 15 and 20.

3. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0088270 A1 (Cragg et al.)

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0088270 A1, "Embolectomy catheter and methods," by Cragg et al.
• Publication Date: May 8, 2003 (Filed: Oct. 25, 2002).
• Brief Description: Cragg describes an embolectomy catheter with a self-expanding distal end, which is explicitly described as potentially being "flared or funnel-shaped," to engage and remove an embolus via aspiration. The application also discloses a "blood conservation system" where aspirated blood is filtered externally and returned to the patient through a separate return line to minimize blood loss.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1: This reference teaches all the core components and steps of the method in Claim 1: a suction catheter with a deployable funnel, a separate reinfusion line, and a filtration/reinfusion circuit. The context is embolectomy—the removal of an existing embolus. As with the references above, it does not explicitly teach the prophylactic placement of the device to capture material dislodged during a separate procedure (like pacemaker lead removal). Its potential for anticipation of Claim 1 hinges on the interpretation of the "dislodged during a surgical procedure" limitation.
  • Claims 15 & 20: Cragg does not disclose the context of a pacemaker lead removal and therefore does not anticipate these claims.

4. U.S. Patent No. 5,947,944 (Abrams)

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent No. 5,947,944, "Method of filtering blood using a single catheter having both aspiration and return lumens," by Robert M. Abrams.
• Publication Date: September 7, 1999 (Filed: Aug. 23, 1996).
• Brief Description: Abrams describes a method for removing emboli using a single, multi-lumen catheter. One lumen aspirates blood, which is then filtered externally and returned to the patient through a second lumen of the same catheter. The distal tip features an expandable filter basket to aid in capture.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1: Abrams teaches the concept of simultaneous aspiration and reinfusion through a closed-loop filtering circuit. However, it presents two key differences from the claims of the '880 patent. First, it uses a single multi-lumen catheter rather than two separate cannulas (though the '880 patent specification does describe such an embodiment, potentially broadening the claim interpretation). Second, it uses an "expandable filter basket" at the tip, not an impermeable "funnel" designed for engaging material. The purpose of Abrams' basket is to stop downstream flow while filtering, a different mechanism from the funnel in the '880 patent, which is primarily for guiding aspirated material into the cannula. Due to these differences, this reference is less likely to anticipate Claim 1.
  • Claims 15 & 20: Abrams does not disclose the pacemaker lead removal context and thus does not anticipate these claims.