DETAILED ACTION
The following Office Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on January 20, 2026. Claims 21-37 are currently pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 20, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Concerning the “Remarks” section on pages 4-5 of the Applicant’s Response filed on January 20, 2026, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Greene’s Figure 13 does not depict delivery of embolic device 300, but instead illustrates delivery embolization device 10, arguing that the Greene reference never explains how its embolic device 300 may be delivered, only describing the delivery methods of the first and second embodiments 10 and 100. However, the examiner asserts that Greene teaches “an exemplary method of delivering a therapeutic agent to a patient comprises providing an embolization device 300 or 400 in accordance with the third or fourth exemplary embodiments thereof described above, disposing a therapeutic agent in the axial reservoir 306 or 406 of the carrier 302 or 402 of the device, and implanting the device in a body cavity of the patient in accordance with one of the methods described below” (emphasis added) (Column 21, Lines 12-28), wherein “the methods described below” includes the delivery method associated with Figure 13 (Column 24, Lines 34-46). Thus, contrary to the applicant’s arguments, the Greene reference does in fact explain how its embolic device 300 may be delivered, wherein one of such delivery methods includes the method shown in Figure 13. Therefore, the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103 stand.
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.
Claim(s) 21-25 and 27-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene, Jr. et al. (US 7,842,054, hereinafter Greene) in view of Mirigian (US 5,578,074).
Concerning claim 21, the Greene, Jr. et al. prior art reference teaches a method of treating an intracranial aneurysm (Figures 1-13 | Column 1, Lines 43-63) comprising the steps of: providing a polymeric occluding device having a lumen therein (Figure 32; 300 | Column 12, Line 62 – Column 13, Line 4; carrier may be made of a polymeric filament | Column 4, Lines 37-49; carrier includes a lumen defining an axial reservoir); providing a delivery member supporting the occluding device (Figure 13; 40’); inserting the delivery member with the occluding device into the intracranial aneurysm (Figure 13; 40’, 42), the delivery member retaining the occluding device during delivery of the occluding device to the intracranial aneurysm (Figure 13; 10, 40’); leaving the occluding device in the intracranial aneurysm (Column 24, Lines 34-46); and delivering a blocking device into a vessel outside the intracranial aneurysm (Figure 13; 60), the blocking device blocking exit of the occluding device from the intracranial aneurysm (Column 24, Line 65 – Column 25, Line 3), but does not specifically teach a portion of the delivery member extending into the lumen of the occluding device.
However, the Mirigian reference teaches a method of treating an aneurysm similar to that of the Green reference, wherein the Mirigian reference teaches the method further comprising providing an occluding device having a lumen therein (Figure 1a; 14), providing a delivery member supporting the occluding device (Figure 1a; 12), wherein a portion of the delivery member extends into the lumen of the occluding device (Figure 1a; 26).
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 replace the delivery member of the Green reference with the delivery member of the Mirigian reference to provide a rapid response detachment mechanism which avoids or minimizes implant position migration during release (Mirigian; Column 2, Line 63 – Column 3, Line 10).
Concerning claim 22, the combination of the Greene and Mirigian references as discussed above teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the Greene reference further teaches the method comprising the step of manipulating the delivery member to maneuver the occluding device within the intracranial aneurysm (Column 24, Lines 34-46).
Concerning claim 23, the combination of the Greene and Mirigian references as discussed above teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the Greene reference further teaches the occluding device having a permeable structure and blood enters the occluding device through a distal end of the lumen and through spaces in the permeable structure whereby the occluding device becomes saturated with blood and induces blood stagnation (Column 11, Line 60 – Column 12, Line 18; the occluding device may include a porous, hydrophilic material that is permeable to blood which may absorb and expand to saturation to fill the aneurysm, which would result in blood stagnation | Column 4, Lines 50-58; the hydrophilic material may fill the lumen of the tubular carrier, therein allowing blood to permeate from the exterior portions of hydrophilic material to saturate the hydrophilic material within the lumen, including to and through a distal end of the lumen).
Concerning claim 24, the combination of the Greene and Mirigian references as discussed above teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the Greene reference further teaches the occluding device having a preset non-linear shape (Column 12, Lines 41-61) and is delivered in a substantially linear configuration (Figure 5) and moves to the non-linear shape when placed within the intracranial aneurysm (Figure 6).
Concerning claim 25, the combination of the Greene and Mirigian references as discussed above teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the Greene reference further teaches the delivery member extending in a space between the blocking device and a wall of the vessel (Figure 13; 40’, 60, 62).
Concerning claim 27, the combination of the Greene and Mirigian references as discussed above teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the Mirigian reference further teaches the delivery member extending through openings in the occluding device when the blocking device is in the vessel (Mirigian; Figure 1a; 26).
Concerning claims 28 and 29, the combination of the Greene and Mirigian references as discussed above teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the Greene reference further teaches the delivery member having a J-tip shape set which points at the blocking device covering a neck of the aneurysm (Figure 13; 40’).
Concerning claims 30 and 31, the combination of the Greene and Mirigian references as discussed above teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the Greene reference further teaches the delivery member remaining in the aneurysm to direct the occluding device to a neck within the aneurysm, wherein the occluding device follows a curvature of the J-tip (Figure 13, 10, 40’ | Column 24, Lines 34-46).
Concerning claim 32, the combination of the Greene and Mirigian references as discussed above teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the Greene reference further teaches the delivery member extending through struts of the blocking device (Figure 13; 40’, 60).
Concerning claims 33 and 34, the combination of the Greene and Mirigian references as discussed above teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the Mirigian reference further teaches the delivery member being a guidewire (Figure 1a; 12) inserted in a microcatheter prior to microcatheter placement (Figure 1a; 24), while the Greene reference teaches the method including a guidewire that is a tracking wire and the microcatheter being tracked to the aneurysm over the guidewire (Column 22, Lines 45-65).
Concerning claim 35, the combination of the Greene and Mirigian references as discussed above teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the Mirigian reference further teaches the delivery member including first and second arms which may capture and retrieve the occluding device (Mirigian; Figure 2b; individual windings 36 may be defined as arms to capture and retrieve occluding device).
Concerning claim 36, the combination of the Greene and Mirigian references as discussed above teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the Greene reference further teaches the blocking device extending distal and proximal a neck of the aneurysm (Figure 13; 42, 60).
Concerning claim 37, the combination of the Greene and Mirigian references as discussed above teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the Greene reference further teaches the blocking device having a different configuration than the occluding device (Figure 13; 10, 60).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene, Jr. et al. (US 7,842,054, hereinafter Greene) in view of Mirigian (US 5,578,074) as applied to claims 21-25 and 27-37 above, and further in view of Escamilla et al. (US 2004/0059407, hereinafter Escamilla).
Concerning claim 26, the combination of the Greene and Mirigian references as discussed above teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the Greene reference further teaches the blocking device having a length longer than an opening in a neck of the aneurysm (Figure 13; 42, 60), but does not specifically teach a plurality of pores.
However, the Escamilla reference teaches a method of treating an aneurysm (Figures 8-13) that may occur in the brain comprising the steps of providing an occluding device (Figure 13; 60), providing a delivery device supporting the occluding device, inserting the delivery member with the occluding device into the intracranial aneurysm, the delivery member retaining the occluding device during the delivery of the occluding device to the intracranial aneurysm (Figure 12; 58); leaving the occluding device in the intracranial aneurysm (Figure 13; 60); and delivering a blocking device into a vessel outside the intracranial aneurysm (Figures 8-13; 10), the blocking device blocking exit of the occluding device from the intracranial aneurysm (Figure 13), wherein the blocking device has a plurality of pores and has a length longer than an opening in a neck of the aneurysm (Figure 12; 10).
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 the blocking device of the Greene and Mirigian combination include a plurality of pores as in the Escamilla reference as a simple substitution of one blocking device structure (helical structure of the Green reference) for another known blocking device structure (tubular structure with plurality of pores of the Escamilla reference) which would yield the expected result of working in essentially the same exact manner.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 MARTIN TRUYEN TON whose telephone number is (571)270-5122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; EST 10:00 AM - 6:30 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, the examiner’s supervisor, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
/MARTIN T TON/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 2/27/2026