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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 20, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 20, 2026, are acknowledged. Claims 1 and 21 are amended. Claim 20 is cancelled. Claim 36 is newly added. No new matter has been added.
Claims 1-11, 21 and 36 are currently pending and considered in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 28, 2026 and on August 12, 2026 were filed after the mailing date of the Final Rejection on January 20, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 and Claim 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim recites wherein Re is 35-60wt%, Mo is greater than 30wt%, and Cr is at least 1wt%. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the remainder would therefore be less than 34wt%; however, the claim also recites wherein the amount of alloying elements may be up to 45wt%, which is greater than 34wt%. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because it unclear what the composition of the alloy is, which of the recited ranges are actually required to meet the limitations, and because the claimed ranges appear to be incompatible with each other.
Regarding Claim 36, the claim recites wherein Re is 35-60wt% and Mo is greater than 30wt%. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the remainder would therefore be less than 35wt%; however, the claim also recites wherein the amount of Cr may be up to 42wt%, and wherein alloying elements may be up to 45wt%, which both amounts are greater than 35wt%. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because it unclear what the composition of the alloy is, which of the recited ranges are actually required to meet the limitations, and because the claimed ranges appear to be incompatible with each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth827 (previously cited, US 20190117827 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Roth827 discloses a rhenium-molybdenum alloy comprising 40-60 wt.% Mo, 40-60 wt.% Re and at least 5 wt.% (i.e., 5-20%) of one or more secondary metals selected from the group of Ti, W, Al, Cu, Zr, Nb, Fe, Co, Ni, Mn, V and Cr (para. [0118]), which reads on and overlaps the claimed ranges. For example, the invention of Roth827 encompasses an alloy comprising 40wt% Re, 40wt% Mo and 20wt% alloying elements, such as equal amounts (5wt% each) of Cr, Nb, Zr and Ti.
Element/Limitation
Claim 1
Roth827 (para. [0118])
Example above demonstrating overlap
Mo
10wt% or more
40-60wt%
40wt%
Re
35-60wt%
40-60wt%
40wt%
at least one of Bi, Zr, Ir, Nb, Ta, Ti and Y
(optionally also Cu, Hf, Mn, Os, Rh, Ru, Tc or V)
5-45wt%
5-20wt%
5wt% Nb,
5wt% Zr
5wt% Ti
Re% + total alloying elements%
> Mo%
Satisfied, 45-80wt%
55wt%>40wt%
Re%
> total alloying elements%
Satisfied
40wt%>15wt%
Re+Mo+Cr+alloying elements
>99.9wt%
Satisfied
100wt%
atomic ratio of Cr to
(Bi, Zr, Ir, Nb, Ta, Ti and/or Y)
(0.4-2.5):1
Satisfied
Cr: (Nb, Zr, Ti) of (0.45):1
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claims 2-6 and Claim 10, the invention of Roth827 encompasses the composition described above (40wt% Re, 40wt% Mo, 5wt% each of Cr, Nb, Zr and Ti) which reads on the overlaps the claimed composition (see Claim 1 above and para. [0018]).
Limitation
Roth (para. [0018]); Example above demonstrating overlap
Claim 2
>1wt% Cr
5wt% Cr
Claim 3
At least one of Bi, Zr, Ir, Nb, Ta and Y
Zr, Nb
Claim 4
Atomic ratio of Cr: (Bi, Zr, Ir, Nb, Ta and/or Y) of (0.5-2):1
Cr: (Zr, Nb) of (0.885):1
Claim 5
At least one Nb, Zr or Ta
Zr, Nb
Claim 6
Atomic ratio of Cr: (Zr, Nb and/or Ta) of (0.4-2.5):1
Cr: (Zr, Nb) of (0.885):1
Claim 10
Atomic ratio of Re:(alloying elements) of (0.8-1.25):1
Re: (Zr, Nb, Ti) of (1.01):1
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 7 and Claim 8, the invention of Roth827 encompasses the composition described above (40wt% Re, 40wt% Mo, 5wt% each of Cr, Nb, Zr and Ti) which reads on and the overlaps the claimed limitations requiring:
Claim 7
Claim 8
Roth (para. [0018]); Example above demonstrating overlap
First metal
At least one of Bi, Zr, Ir, Nb, Ta and/or Y
At least one of Zr, Nb and/or Ta
Nb
Second metal
At least one of Bi, Zr, Ir, Nb, Ta and/or Y
At least one of Zr, Nb and/or Ta
Zr
Atomic ratio of first metal to second metal
(0.4-2.5):1
(0.4-2.5):1
Nb:Zr atomic ratio of (0.98):1
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 9, Roth827 discloses wherein said rhenium metal alloy includes less than 0.1 wt.% impurities (para. [0021], less than 0.01wt% impurities).
Regarding Claim 11, Roth827 discloses said rhenium metal alloy has a controlled amount of nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon to reduce micro- racking in said rhenium metal alloy; a nitrogen content in said rhenium metal alloy is less than a combined content of oxygen and carbon in said rhenium metal alloy; said rhenium metal alloy has an oxygen to nitrogen atomic ratio of at least about 1.2:1; said rhenium metal alloy has a carbon to nitrogen atomic ratio of at least about 2:1 (para. [0014], regarding controlling N, O and C for microcracking; para. [0015], wherein O:N ratio is at least 1.2:1 and C:N ratio is at least 2:1).
Regarding Claim 21, Roth827 discloses a rhenium-molybdenum alloy comprising 40-60 wt.% Mo, 40-60 wt.% Re and at least 5 wt.% (i.e., 5-20%) of one or more secondary metals selected from the group of Ti, W, Al, Cu, Zr, Nb, Fe, Co, Ni, Mn, V and Cr (para. [0118]), which reads on and overlaps the claimed ranges. For example, the invention of Roth827 encompasses an alloy comprising 40wt% Re, 40wt% Mo and 20wt% alloying elements, such as of equal amounts (5wt% each) of Cr, Nb, Zr and Ti.
Element/Limitation
Claim 21
Roth827 (para. [0118])
Example above demonstrating overlap
Mo
>30wt%
40-60wt%
40wt%
Re
35-60wt%
40-60wt%
40wt%
Cr
1% or more
5-20wt%
5wt% Cr
at least one of Bi, Zr, Ir, Nb, Ta, Ti and Y
(optionally also Cu, Hf, Mn, Os, Rh, Ru, Tc or V)
5-45wt%
5-20wt%
5wt% Nb,
5wt% Zr
5wt% Ti
Re% + total alloying elements%
> Mo%
Satisfied, 45-80wt%
55wt%>40wt%
Re%
> total alloying elements%
Satisfied
40wt%>15wt%
Re+Mo+Cr+alloying elements
>99.9wt%
Satisfied
100wt%
atomic ratio of Cr to each of Bi, Zr, Ir, Nb, Ta, Ti and/or Y
(0.4-2.5):1
Satisfied
Cr: Nb of (1.79):1
Cr: Zr of (1.75):1
Cr: Ti of (0.92):1
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Roth827 fails to disclose wherein:
said rhenium metal alloy has a hydrophilicity wherein a contact angle of a water droplet on a surface of said rhenium metal alloy of 25-45°; wherein
said rhenium metal alloy has a maximum ion release of a primary component of said rhenium metal alloy when inserted or implanted on or in a body of a patient of no more than 0.5 pg/cm2 per day, and wherein said primary component constitutes at least 2 wt.% of said rhenium metal alloy; wherein
said rhenium metal alloy has an absolute increase in ion release per dose of rhenium metal alloy in tissue of no more than 50 days after inserted or implanted on or in the body of the patient; and wherein
said rhenium metal alloy when formed into an expandable frame exhibits a recoil percentage of less than 5% after the expandable frame has been subjected to a first crimping process, and said rhenium metal alloy when formed into the expandable frame exhibits a recoil percentage of less than 5% after the expandable frame has been expanded from a crimped state to an expanded state.
However, the rhenium metal alloy composition of Roth827 is the same as claimed, and it would be expected that the alloy comprises the claimed hydrophilicity and behave in the claimed manner when used in the claimed way and the intended function when incorporated in at least 2wt% of a primary component inserted into the body of a patient, inserted into tissue, and when formed into an expandable frame.
When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Claims 1-11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth494 (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed February 2, 2022, US 20170216494 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Roth494 discloses a novel alloy comprising 40-60wt% Re, 40-60wt% Mo, and 0.05-20wt% of one or more metals selected from the group including Nb, Ti, V and Zr, and further, 0.005-5wt% one or more additional metals including Cr (para. [0012]-[0013]). Roth494 further discloses 2wt% or less Ti, 5wt% or less Zr, 5wt% or less Nb, and 5wt% or less V (para. [0013]). Thus, Roth494 discloses an alloy comprising 40wt% Re, 40wt% Mo, 2wt% Ti, 5wt% Zr, 5wt% Nb, 3wt% V and 5wt% of an additional element such as Cr, which reads on the claimed invention (see Table below):
Element/Limitation
Claim 1
Roth494 para. [0012]-[0013]
Example above demonstrating overlap
Mo
10wt% or more
40-60wt%
40wt%
Re
35-60wt%
40-60wt%
40wt%
at least one of Bi, Zr, Ir, Nb, Ta, Ti and Y
(optionally also Cu, Hf, Mn, Os, Rh, Ru, Tc or V)
5-45wt%
0.05-20wt%;
0-5wt% Zr;
0-5wt% Nb;
0-2wt% Ti;
0-5wt% V
5wt% Zr
5wt% Nb
2wt% Ti
3wt% V
Re% + total alloying elements%
> Mo%
Satisfied, 40.05-80wt%
55wt%>40wt%
Re%
> total alloying elements%
Satisfied
40wt%>15wt%
Re+Mo+Cr+alloying elements
>99.9wt%
Satisfied
100wt%
atomic ratio of Cr to
(Bi, Zr, Ir, Nb, Ta, Ti and/or Y)
(0.4-2.5):1
Satisfied
Cr: (Zr, Nb, Ti) of (0.64):1
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claims 2-6 and Claim 10, the invention of Roth494 encompasses the composition described above (40wt% Re, 40wt% Mo, 5wt% Zr, 5wt% Nb, 2wt% Ti, 3wt% V, and 5wt% Cr) which reads on the overlaps the claimed composition (see Claim 1 above and para. [0012]-[0013]).
Limitation
Roth494 (para. [0012]-[0013]; Example above demonstrating overlap
Claim 2
>1wt% Cr
5wt% Cr
Claim 3
At least one of Bi, Zr, Ir, Nb, Ta and Y
Zr, Nb
Claim 4
Atomic ratio of Cr: (Bi, Zr, Ir, Nb, Ta and/or Y) of (0.5-2):1
Cr: (Zr, Nb) of (0.64):1
Claim 5
At least one Nb, Zr or Ta
Zr, Nb
Claim 6
Atomic ratio of Cr: (Zr, Nb and/or Ta) of (0.4-2.5):1
Cr: (Zr) of (0.64):1
Claim 10
Atomic ratio of Re:(alloying elements) of (0.8-1.25):1
Re: (Zr, Nb, Ti, Nb) of (1.03):1
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 7 and Claim 8, the invention of Roth494 encompasses the composition described above (40wt% Re, 40wt% Mo, 5wt% Nb, 5wt% Zr, 2wt% Ti, 3wt% V and 5wt% Cr) which reads on and the overlaps the claimed limitations requiring:
Claim 7
Claim 8
Roth494 (para. [0012]-[0013]); Example above demonstrating overlap
First metal
At least one of Bi, Zr, Ir, Nb, Ta and/or Y
At least one of Zr, Nb and/or Ta
Nb
Second metal
At least one of Bi, Zr, Ir, Nb, Ta and/or Y
At least one of Zr, Nb and/or Ta
Zr
Atomic ratio of first metal to second metal
(0.4-2.5):1
(0.4-2.5):1
Nb:Zr atomic ratio of (0.98):1
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 9, Roth494 discloses wherein said rhenium metal alloy includes less than 0.1 wt.% impurities (para. [0018], less than 0.01wt% impurities).
Regarding Claim 11, Roth494 discloses said rhenium metal alloy has a controlled amount of nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon to reduce micro- racking in said rhenium metal alloy; a nitrogen content in said rhenium metal alloy is less than a combined content of oxygen and carbon in said rhenium metal alloy; said rhenium metal alloy has an oxygen to nitrogen atomic ratio of at least about 1.2:1; said rhenium metal alloy has a carbon to nitrogen atomic ratio of at least about 2:1 (para. [0019], regarding controlling O and C for microcracking; para. [0021], controlling N for ductility; para. [0022], wherein O:N ratio is at least 1.2:1 and C:N ratio is at least 2:1).
Regarding Claim 21, Roth494 discloses a novel alloy comprising 40-60wt% Re, 40-60wt% Mo, and 0.05-20wt% of one or more metals selected from the group including Nb, Ti, V and Zr, and further, 0.005-5wt% one or more additional metals including Cr (para. [0012]-[0013]). Roth494 further discloses 2wt% or less Ti, 5wt% or less Zr, 5wt% or less Nb, and 5wt% or less V (para. [0013]). Thus, Roth494 discloses an alloy comprising 40wt% Re, 40wt% Mo, 2wt% Ti, 5wt% Zr, 5wt% Nb, 3wt% V and 5wt% of an additional element such as Cr, which reads on the claimed invention (see Table below):
Element/Limitation
Claim 21
Roth494 (para. [0012]-[0013])
Example above demonstrating overlap
Mo
>30wt%
40-60wt%
40wt%
Re
35-60wt%
40-60wt%
40wt%
Cr
1% or more
5-20wt%
5wt% Cr
at least one of Bi, Zr, Ir, Nb, Ta, Ti and Y
(optionally also Cu, Hf, Mn, Os, Rh, Ru, Tc or V)
5-45wt%
0.05-20wt%;
0-5wt% Zr;
0-5wt% Nb;
0-2wt% Ti;
0-5wt% V
5wt% Zr
5wt% Nb
2wt% Ti
3wt% V
Re% + total alloying elements%
> Mo%
Satisfied, 45-80wt%
55wt%>40wt%
Re%
> total alloying elements%
Satisfied
40wt%>15wt%
Re+Mo+Cr+alloying elements
>99.9wt%
Satisfied
100wt%
atomic ratio of Cr to each of Bi, Zr, Ir, Nb, Ta, Ti and/or Y
(0.4-2.5):1
Satisfied
Cr: Nb of (1.79):1
Cr: Zr of (1.75):1
Cr: Ti of (2.30):1
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Roth494 fails to disclose wherein:
said rhenium metal alloy has a hydrophilicity wherein a contact angle of a water droplet on a surface of said rhenium metal alloy of 25-45°; wherein
said rhenium metal alloy has a maximum ion release of a primary component of said rhenium metal alloy when inserted or implanted on or in a body of a patient of no more than 0.5 pg/cm2 per day, and wherein said primary component constitutes at least 2 wt.% of said rhenium metal alloy; wherein
said rhenium metal alloy has an absolute increase in ion release per dose of rhenium metal alloy in tissue of no more than 50 days after inserted or implanted on or in the body of the patient; and wherein
said rhenium metal alloy when formed into an expandable frame exhibits a recoil percentage of less than 5% after the expandable frame has been subjected to a first crimping process, and said rhenium metal alloy when formed into the expandable frame exhibits a recoil percentage of less than 5% after the expandable frame has been expanded from a crimped state to an expanded state.
However, the rhenium metal alloy composition of Roth494 is the same as claimed, and it would be expected that the alloy comprises the claimed hydrophilicity and behave in the claimed manner when used in the claimed way and the intended function when incorporated in at least 2wt% of a primary component inserted into the body of a patient, inserted into tissue, and when formed into an expandable frame.
When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (KR 101761009 B1, English Translation provided).
Regarding Claim 36, Ryu discloses a high entropy alloy comprising at least four elements selected from the group including W, Mo, Ti, V, Cr, Nb, Zr, Re, Hf and Ta, wherein each element is present in an amount of 5-35mol% (at%) (para. [0013]; para. [0010]). The invention of Ho therefore encompasses an alloy such as 17at% Re, 30at% Mo, 34at% Cr and 19at% Ti, which equates to 36.3wt% Re, 33wt% Mo, 20.3wt% Cr and 10.4wt% Ti, and reads on the claimed limitations (see table below).
Element/Limitation
Claim 36
Example above showing Ryu overlap
Mo
>30wt%
33wt%
Re
35-60wt%
36.3wt%
Cr
>20-42wt%
20.3wt% Cr
at least one of Bi, Zr, Ir, Nb, Ta, Ti and Y
(optionally also Cu, Hf, Mn, Os, Rh, Ru, Tc or V)
1-45wt%
10.4wt% Ti
Re% + total alloying elements%
> Mo%
46.7wt% > 33wt%
Re%
> total alloying elements%
36.3wt%>10.4wt%
Re+Mo+Cr+alloying elements
>99.9wt%
100wt%
atomic ratio of Cr to each of Bi, Zr, Ir, Nb, Ta, Ti and/or Y
(0.4-2.5):1
Cr: Ti of (1.79):1
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Ryu fails to disclose wherein:
said rhenium metal alloy has a hydrophilicity wherein a contact angle of a water droplet on a surface of said rhenium metal alloy of 25-45°; wherein
said rhenium metal alloy has a maximum ion release of a primary component of said rhenium metal alloy when inserted or implanted on or in a body of a patient of no more than 0.5 pg/cm2 per day, and wherein said primary component constitutes at least 2 wt.% of said rhenium metal alloy; wherein
said rhenium metal alloy has an absolute increase in ion release per dose of rhenium metal alloy in tissue of no more than 50 days after inserted or implanted on or in the body of the patient; and wherein
said rhenium metal alloy when formed into an expandable frame exhibits a recoil percentage of less than 5% after the expandable frame has been subjected to a first crimping process, and said rhenium metal alloy when formed into the expandable frame exhibits a recoil percentage of less than 5% after the expandable frame has been expanded from a crimped state to an expanded state.
However, the rhenium metal alloy composition of Ryu is the same as claimed, and it would be expected that the alloy comprises the claimed hydrophilicity and behave in the claimed manner when used in the claimed way and the intended function when incorporated in at least 2wt% of a primary component inserted into the body of a patient, inserted into tissue, and when formed into an expandable frame.
When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed April 20, 2026, directed to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Roth827 and over Roth494, have been fully considered but are respectfully not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that Roth827 and Roth494 disclose Cr as an optional element, and fail to disclose requiring Cr. Applicant argues that neither Roth827 nor Roth494 disclose an alloy example with Cr.
Applicant also argues that Roth827 and Roth494 are silent towards atomic ratios of Cr to one or more of Bi, Zr, Ir, Nb, Ta, Ti and Y.
These arguments are not found persuasive.
Patents are relevant as prior art for all they contain, including nonpreferred embodiments. Additionally, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123.I&II. The optionality of Cr in Roth827 and Roth494 does not constitute a teaching away from the inclusion of Cr, and an example alloy in Roth827 or Roth494 is not required to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Further, the instant specification does not appear to comprise any working examples, and therefore also fails to comprise a working example comprising Cr. Applicant has also not provided a showing of criticality or unexpected results for any of the claimed ranges, including the presence of Cr.
Regarding the atomic ratios, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Roth872 and Roth494 disclose compositions which comprise the claimed atomic ratios, and Applicant has not provided criticality for the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Furst (US 20140099279 A1): discloses a rhenium (Re) alloy comprising 45-50wt% (Re), at least 40wt% Mo, and up to 5wt% total of Ti, Y and/or Zr (para. [0016]).
Adams (US 20030206823 A1): teaches alloying a rhenium based alloy with up to 15at% Cr in order to improve oxidation resistance (Abstract; para. [0024]; Claim 4, 0-15at% Cr).
Xu (US 20040049261 A): teaches a medical device comprised of a molybdenum-rhenium alloy including 10-70% Mo and 30-90wt% Re, preferably 35-55% Re (para. [0008]; para. [0020]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)-272-3458. 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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights