Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/498,612

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TREATING ANEURYSMS

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Oct 11, 2021
Examiner
IGBOKO, CHIMA U
Art Unit
3771
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Galaxy Therapeutics Inc.
OA Round
4 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
319 granted / 408 resolved
+8.2% vs TC avg
Strong +41% interview lift
Without
With
+40.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
452
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
42.6%
+2.6% vs TC avg
§102
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
§112
21.8%
-18.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 408 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Response to Amendment The Amendment filed 10/06/25 has been entered. Claims 6 and 16 remain withdrawn. Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are addressed in the following office action. 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. 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 1-5, 7, 9-15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bowman (US 2017/0224355), cited in previous office action. As to claim 1, Bowman discloses an apparatus (apparatus of figure 10-12) for treating an aneurysm in a blood vessel (see paragraph 0113-0116), comprising: an occlusion device (35) configured to be releasably coupled (see paragraph 0154-155) to an elongate delivery shaft (48) [Note, the elongate delivery shaft is not part of the claimed invention], the occlusion device comprising an inverted mesh tube (see figure 11, top inverts) having an outer layer (the layer 31 surrounding layer 32) and an inner layer (layer making up 32), the outer layer transitioning to the inner layer at an inversion fold (see annotated figure below), wherein at least the outer layer is formed into an expanded shape having a proximal section (see figure below) having a proximal section maximum diameter (see annotated figure below), a distal section (see annotated figure below) having a distal section maximum diameter (see annotated figure below), and a waist portion (see annotated figure below) comprising a reduced diameter over a longitudinal length (see annotated figure below), thus providing a longitudinal space between an extreme distal end of the proximal section and an extreme proximal end of the distal section (see annotated figure below), when an angle A between the proximal section and the distal section is 180° (the longitudinal axis of the distal section and proximal section are aligned, hence the 180°, see figure 11), such that the distal section and the proximal section are able to move toward each other on a side of the occlusion device as the angle A between a proximal longitudinal axis of the proximal section and a distal longitudinal axis of the distal section is decreased (the devices are composed of braid forming multiple shaped sections which allow compressibility and elongation, allowing the devices to conform to the general shape of the aneurysm, see paragraph 0115, 0139, 0143), the waist portion having a waist portion maximum diameter (see annotated figure below), wherein the waist portion maximum diameter is less than the proximal section maximum diameter and the waist portion maximum diameter is less than the distal section maximum diameter (see annotated figure below), and wherein the distal section comprises a mushroom head shape (seen as mushroom shape) that is longitudinally bounded by a transverse proximal face extending inwardly to the waist portion (see annotated figure below) and by a dome-like distal face (see annotated figure below). PNG media_image1.png 397 697 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 446 544 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 358 465 media_image3.png Greyscale As to claim 2, Bowman discloses the invention of claim 1, Bowman further discloses: wherein the waist portion is substantially cylindrical in shape (seen as substantially cylindrical, see paragraphs 0139 & 0142). As to claim 3, Bowman discloses the invention of claim 1, Bowman further discloses: wherein the waist portion comprises a circumferential concavity (see annotated figure below). PNG media_image4.png 330 546 media_image4.png Greyscale As to claim 4, Bowman discloses the invention of claim 1, Bowman further discloses: wherein the inner layer has an expanded shape which conforms with the expanded shape of the outer layer (both layers are made of a material that conforms, thus the inner layer can conform with the expanded shape of the outer layer when deployed, see figure 11 and paragraphs 0003, 0115 and 0190). As to claim 5, Bowman discloses the invention of claim 1, Bowman further discloses: wherein the inversion fold is a circular shape (disc-shaped, see figure 11 and paragraph 0139) surrounding an orifice that communicates with an internal volume of the occlusion device (see annotated figure below). PNG media_image5.png 337 432 media_image5.png Greyscale As to claim 7, Bowman discloses the invention of claim 1, Bowman further discloses: wherein the occlusion device is configured to be delivered in a collapsed configuration through an inner lumen of a delivery catheter (paragraphs 0127-0128, 0143, 0160). As to claim 9, Bowman discloses the invention of claim 1, Bowman further discloses: wherein the proximal section maximum diameter and the distal section maximum diameter are substantially the same (see annotated figure below, seen as substantially the same). PNG media_image6.png 397 697 media_image6.png Greyscale As to claim 10, Bowman discloses the invention of claim 1, Bowman further discloses: wherein the proximal section comprises a conical shape (see figure 11 and paragraph 0139). As to claim 11, Bowman discloses an apparatus (apparatus of figure 10-12) for treating an aneurysm in a blood vessel (see paragraph 0113-0116), comprising: an occlusion device (35) configured to be releasably coupled (paragraph 0154-0155) to an elongate delivery shaft (48) [Note, the elongate delivery shaft is not part of the claimed invention], the occlusion device comprising an inverted mesh tube (see figure 11, top inverts) having an outer layer (the layer 31 surrounding layer 32) and an inner layer (layer making up 32), the outer layer transitioning to the inner layer at an inversion fold at a distal end of the occlusion device (see annotated figure below), wherein at least the outer layer is formed into an expanded shape having a proximal section (see annotated figure below) having a proximal section maximum diameter (see annotated figure below), a distal section (see annotated figure below) having a distal section maximum diameter (see annotated figure below), and a waist portion (see annotated figure below) comprising a reduced diameter over a longitudinal length, thus providing a longitudinal space between an extreme distal end of the proximal section and an extreme distal end of the distal section (see annotated figure below) when an angle A between the proximal section and the distal section is 180° (the longitudinal axis of the distal section and proximal section are aligned, hence the 180°, see figure 11), such that the distal section and the proximal section are able to move toward each other on a side of the occlusion device as the angle A between a proximal longitudinal axis of the proximal section and a distal longitudinal axis of the distal section is decreased (the devices are composed of braid forming multiple shaped sections which allow compressibility and elongation, allowing the devices to conform to the general shape of the aneurysm, see paragraph 0115, 0139, 0143), the waist portion having a waist portion maximum diameter (see annotated figure below), wherein the waist portion maximum diameter is less than the proximal section maximum diameter and the waist portion maximum diameter is less than the distal section maximum diameter (see annotated figure below), and wherein the distal section comprises a shape that is longitudinally bounded by a flat transverse proximal face extending substantially inwardly to the waist portion and by a convex distal face (see annotated figure below). PNG media_image1.png 397 697 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 446 544 media_image7.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 358 465 media_image3.png Greyscale As to claim 12, Bowman discloses the invention of claim 11, Bowman further discloses: wherein the waist portion is substantially cylindrical in shape (seen as substantially cylindrical, see paragraphs 0139 & 0142). As to claim 13, Bowman discloses the invention of claim 11, Bowman further discloses: wherein the waist portion comprises a circumferential concavity (see annotated figure above). PNG media_image4.png 330 546 media_image4.png Greyscale As to claim 14, Bowman discloses the invention of claim 11, Bowman further discloses: wherein the inner layer has an expanded shape which conforms with the expanded shape of the outer layer (both layers are made of a material that conforms, thus the inner layer can conform with the expanded shape of the outer layer when deployed, see figure 11 and paragraphs 0003, 0115 and 0190). As to claim 15, Bowman discloses the invention of claim 11, Bowman further discloses: wherein the inversion fold is a circular shape (disc-shaped, see figure 11 and paragraph 0139) surrounding an orifice that communicates with an internal volume of the occlusion device (see annotated figure below). PNG media_image5.png 337 432 media_image5.png Greyscale As to claim 17, Bowman discloses the invention of claim 11, Bowman further discloses: wherein the occlusion device is configured to be delivered in a collapsed configuration through an inner lumen of a delivery catheter (paragraphs 0127-0128, 0143, 0160). As to claim 19, Bowman discloses the invention of claim 11, Bowman further discloses: wherein the proximal section maximum diameter and the distal section maximum diameter are substantially the same (see annotated figure below, seen as substantially the same). PNG media_image6.png 397 697 media_image6.png Greyscale As to claim 20, Bowman discloses the invention of claim 11, Bowman further discloses: wherein the proximal section comprises a conical shape (see figure 11 and paragraph 0139) . 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 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowman (US 2017/0224355) as applied to claims 7 and 17 above, further in view of Lorenzo (US 2018/0242979), cited in previous office action. As to claim 8, Bowman discloses the invention of claim 7, Bowman fails to directly disclose: wherein the occlusion device comprises a plurality of filaments comprising a shape memory alloy. In the same field of endeavor, namely aneurysm treatment devices, Lorenzo teaches that its well known to make an aneurysm device out of shape memory filaments (nitinol, paragraph 0081). 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 device of Bowman out of nitinol filaments as disclosed in Lorenzo because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. Here all elements of the claim are well known in the art of aneurysm treatment devices. Modifying Bowman to have nitinol filaments would not change the device’s function of being implanted in a patient’s vasculature. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the device of Bowman out of nitinol filaments, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. As to claim 18, Bowman discloses the invention of claim 17, Bowman fails to directly disclose: wherein the occlusion device comprises a plurality of filaments comprising a shape memory alloy. In the same field of endeavor, namely aneurysm treatment devices, Lorenzo teaches that its well known to make an aneurysm device out of shape memory filaments (nitinol, paragraph 0081). 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 device of Bowman out of nitinol filaments as disclosed in Lorenzo because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. Here all elements of the claim are well known in the art of aneurysm treatment devices. Modifying Bowman to have nitinol filaments would not change the device’s function of being implanted in a patient’s vasculature. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the device of Bowman out of nitinol filaments, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the office action of record does not establish that previously cited prior art reference Bowman discloses "wherein the distal section comprises a mushroom head shape that is longitudinally bounded by a flat transverse proximal face extending inwardly to the waist portion and by a dome-like distal dome” in claim 1, and “longitudinally bound by a flat transverse proximal face extending substantially inwardly to the waist portion and by a convex distal face” in claim 11. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Concerning claim 1, Bowman discloses wherein a distal section (see annotated figure below) comprises a mushroom head shape (seen as mushroom shape) that is longitudinally bounded by a transverse proximal face extending inwardly to the waist portion (see annotated figure below) and by a dome-like distal face (see annotated figure below). PNG media_image1.png 397 697 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 446 544 media_image2.png Greyscale Concerning claim 11, Bowman discloses wherein a distal section (see annotated figure below) comprises a shape that is longitudinally bounded by a flat transverse proximal face extending substantially inwardly to the waist portion and by a convex distal face (see annotated figure below). PNG media_image1.png 397 697 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 446 544 media_image7.png Greyscale Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Chima Igboko whose telephone number is (571)272-8422. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Jackie Ho, at (571) 272-4696. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /C.U.I/ Examiner, Art Unit 3771 /ASHLEY L FISHBACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771 October 29, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 11, 2021
Application Filed
May 05, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 10, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 01, 2023
Interview Requested
Dec 20, 2023
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 21, 2023
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 29, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Sep 03, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 15, 2024
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 13, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 20, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 20, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 18, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 19, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 06, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 22, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599499
DEVICES AND METHODS FOR CREATING A CAPSULORHEXIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12569362
DELIVERY DEVICE AND METHOD OF DELIVERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569332
IOL INJECTOR WITH AUTOMATIC DRIVER OR ASSISTED MANUAL DRIVE FORCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569327
INTRAVASCULAR CATHETER HAVING AN EXPANDABLE INCISING PORTION AND EMBOLIC PROTECTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12558096
FULL EVERSION ANASTOMOSIS JUNCTURE FORMATION AND SUTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+40.8%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 408 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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