Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 17/473,438

STENTS AND METHODS FOR USE AND MANUFACTURE OF STENTS WITH IMPROVED RETENTION MEMBERS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 13, 2021
Priority
Sep 14, 2020 — provisional 63/078,019
Examiner
MCEVOY, THOMAS M
Art Unit
3771
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Boston Scientific Scimed Inc.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allowance Rate
717 granted / 1011 resolved
+0.9% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+35.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
1062
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
81.3%
+41.3% vs TC avg
§102
11.9%
-28.1% vs TC avg
§112
5.4%
-34.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1011 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 29th 2025 has been entered. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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. Claims 1-5, 14, 15, 17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nae et al. (US 2019/0110911). Regarding claim 1, Nae et al. disclose a stent (Figure 16A; Abstract), comprising: an elongate body comprising a structure set in an expanded configuration (Abstract), wherein, when in the expanded configuration, the elongate body comprises (see drawing below) a first flange (grey area), a second flange (analogous area to grey area in white), and a central portion (black area) therebetween formed from the elongate body in an expanded configuration, wherein ends of the elongate body are doubled back into the respective first and second flanges having a double walled structure protruding radially outward from the central portion (a triple walled structure encompasses a double walled structure), and wherein the first and second flanges extend to form saddle interaction regions that overlap (where ends 214 and 215 overlap), at least partially, with each other in a lateral direction in the central portion. PNG media_image1.png 631 507 media_image1.png Greyscale [AltContent: textbox (First Flange (grey))][AltContent: textbox (Central Portion (black))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow] Nae et al. fail to disclose that the structure is formed from braided wire. However Nae et al. disclose that the graft tube (216) partially forming the stent can be a mesh structure (¶[0055]). It is notoriously well-known in the art to form a mesh structure for a stent from braided filaments or wires (e.g. see ¶[0048] of US 2014/0228935). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the mesh of Nae et al. from braided wires or filaments in order to take advantage of this well-known means used to form a mesh. Regarding claim 2, the elongate body is formed across an inner opening of the first and second flanges (evident from Figure 16A inasmuch as this limitation is met by Applicant’s Figure 4D). Regarding claim 3, the stent comprises an unexpanded configuration when constrained by a delivery device prior to being deployed (¶[0085]). Regarding claim 4, a diameter of the first flange, the second flange, or both is larger than a diameter of the elongate body (at the central portion) in the expanded configuration (evident from Figure 16A). Regarding claim 5, at least one other one of the first or second flanges is doubled back entirely into the respective first or second flange such that the respective end of the stent comprise an aflush end face that is flush with the respective end of the stent (e.g. see flush terminal ends of the stent in Figure 20B). Regarding claim 14, Nae et al. disclose a stent (Figure 16A; Abstract), comprising: a stent body having a constrained configuration and an expanded configuration (Abstract), the stent body comprising (see drawing above) a tubular structure including a first portion (grey area), a second portion (analogous area to grey area in white), and a central portion (black area) extending therebetween in the expanded configuration, wherein the stent body is set in the expanded configuration (Abstract), wherein one or both of the first portion and the second portion are doubled back toward the opposing portion to form, respectively, a first flange and second flange (the first and second portions are flanges), and wherein the first and second flanges extend to form saddle interaction regions that overlap, at least partially, with each other in a lateral direction (evident from drawing above and Figure 16A). Nae et al. fail to disclose that the structure is formed from braided wire. However Nae et al. disclose that the graft tube (216) partially forming the stent can be a mesh structure (¶[0055]). It is notoriously well-known in the art to form a mesh structure for a stent from braided filaments or wires (e.g. see ¶[0048] of US 2014/0228935). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the mesh of Nae et al. from braided wires or filaments in order to take advantage of this well-known means used to form a mesh. Regarding claim 15, the stent body is formed across an inner opening of the first and second flanges ((evident from Figure 16A inasmuch as this limitation is met by Applicant’s Figure 4D). Regarding claim 17, at least one other one of the first or second flanges is doubled back entirely into the respective first or second flange such that the respective end of the stent comprise a flush end face that is flush with the respective end of the stent (e.g. see flush terminal ends of the stent in Figure 20B). Regarding claim 19, the stent further comprises a coating (231 or adhesive ¶[0070]). Regarding claim 20, the coating constrains at least one doubled back end of the tubular structure along a radially outward surface of the tubular structure (evident from Figure 22B). Regarding claim 21, at least one of the first and second flanges comprises a protruding lip at a distal end (see lips formed by undulating end in Figure 23A). Regarding claim 22, at least one of the first and second flanges comprises a protruding lip at a distal end of the double walled structure (see lips formed by undulating end in Figure 23A). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas McEvoy whose telephone number is (571) 270-5034 and direct fax number is (571) 270-6034. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00 am – 6:00 pm. 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, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Elizabeth Houston at (571) 272-7134. 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/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. /THOMAS MCEVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 6 earlier events
Jan 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Jul 14, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 28, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Dec 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 16, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 18, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12678182
RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR USE THEREOF
4y 2m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12678153
All-Suture Anchor
2y 4m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12661260
Devices and Methods for Illuminating an Intraocular Implant
5y 10m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12648866
IMPLANTABLE MEDICAL DEVICE WITH CAVITATION FEATURES
3y 9m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12648791
CIRCUMCISION EQUIPMENT
2y 2m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+35.6%)
3y 7m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1011 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month