DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 15, and 18-30 is/are pending. Claim(s) 2-3, 7-13, 14, and 16-17 is/are canceled.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 15, and 18-20 are allowable.
Claims 22-23, 25, and 27-28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
No arguments were presented with the 3/20/2026 RCE.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 USPTO internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application will determine 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21, 24, 26, 29, and 30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 35 and 44 of copending Application No. 18/170,364 in view of Anneaux, et al (Anneaux) (US 2011/0030885).
The following prior claims substantially contain the limitations claimed by the current Application as indicated in the following table.
Current Application
Prior ‘364 Application
21
35, 44
24
35, 44
Inside surface is the luminal surface
26
35, 44
29
35, 44
Inside surface is the luminal surface
30
35, 44
This feature is an inherently property of the material. MPEP 2112.02(II)
The ‘364 Applicant claims the invention substantially as claimed but fails to claim a layer of ePTFE.
Anneaux teaches a multi-layered stent (e.g. Figures 1-4, abstract) having a radially outer layer of ePTFE (e.g. [0021]).
Anneaux and the claims of the ‘364 Application are concerned with the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, namely multi-layer stents made of PTFE materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the claims of the ‘364 Application such that there is an outer layer made of ePTFE as it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)) of using a known (per Anneaux) material that can be used to control cell growth into the layer (e.g. Anneaux, [0032]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 21, 24, 26, 29, and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 35 and 44 of U.S. Patent No. 10,675,850 in view of Anneaux, et al (Anneaux) (US 2011/0030885).
The following prior claims substantially contain the limitations claimed by the current Application as indicated in the following table.
Current Application
Prior ‘850 Patent
21
5
24
5
Inside surface is the luminal surface
26
5
29
5
Inside surface is the luminal surface
30
5
This feature is an inherently property of the material. MPEP 2112.02(II)
The ‘850 patent claims the invention substantially as claimed but fails to claim a layer of ePTFE.
Anneaux teaches a multi-layered stent (e.g. Figures 1-4, abstract) having a radially outer layer of ePTFE (e.g. [0021]).
Anneaux and the claims of the ‘850 patent are concerned with the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, namely multi-layer stents made of PTFE materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the claims of the ‘364 Application such that there is an outer layer made of ePTFE as it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)) of using a known (per Anneaux) material that can be used to control cell growth into the layer (e.g. Anneaux, [0032]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE A LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7044. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM, MST.
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, THOMAS BARRETT can be reached at (571)272-4746. 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.
/LESLIE A LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 4/21/2026
Prosecution Insights