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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/11/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed September 11th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-21 remain pending in the application. Claims 14-21 remain withdrawn from consideration. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed June 11th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 09/11/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 over US 10390982 B1 in view of US 20200246166 A1 of claim 1 has been withdrawn and a new grounds of rejection is set forth below.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “retrieval mechanisms" in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification discloses that the “retrieval mechanisms” can include a hook and/or one half of a threaded fastener (see paragraphs [0014], [0034], and [0036] of the Instant Application).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the newly added limitation "a space encompassed by the 4-8 struts which is completely unobstructed" is not disclosed in the specification. The only mention of obstruction in the specification is once, and only to refer to the medical term "patent" that refers to “a structure that is generally open and/or unobstructed, and which is not substantially closed" (see paragraph [0011] of Instant Application), and it does not describe the space encompassed by the struts being "completely unobstructed". Further, Figs. 1, 3, 8, and 9 which are pointed to by the applicant for support of this amendment illustrate the connector 102 and distal tip 106 at least partially obstructing the space claimed. Therefore, the limitation is considered new matter.
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.
Claims 1-13 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 1, it is unclear as to what “completely unobstructed” entails because Figures 1, 3, 8, and 9 illustrate connector 102 and distal tip 106 at least partially obstructing the space encompassed by the struts, rendering the claim indefinite. Clarification is required.
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 1-3 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6241746 B1 (hereafter –Bosma--), in view of US 10390982 B1 (hereafter --Raychev--).
Regarding Claim 1, Bosma discloses a retrievable stent configured to be positioned across the ductus arteriosus in a pediatric human patient to keep the ductus arteriosus open and ensure adequate blood flow, the stent comprising: a proximal end connector and a distal end tip disposed about a longitudinal axis (see annotated proximal end connector and distal end tip in Figure 1 below), a proximal end connector lumen that runs the length of the proximal end connector and, and the distal end tip having a distal end tip lumen that runs the length of the distal end tip (see annotated retrieval mechanism in Figure 1 below), each of the struts having a curved proximal strut end and a curved distal strut end wherein the curved proximal strut end and the curved distal strut end extend radially outward from the longitudinal axis and toward one another (see annotated curved proximal strut end, curved distal strut end, and longitudinal axis in Figures 1-3 below), each of the struts further having an elongated strut body portion that extends from the curved proximal strut end to the curved distal strut end, the elongated strut body portions extending parallel to each other (see annotated elongated strut body portion in Figures 1-3 below); and a space encompassed by the struts which is completely unobstructed (see annotated unobstructed space in Figures 1); wherein, when the stent is positioned in the ductus arteriosus, the curved proximal strut ends and the curved distal strut ends engage the ductus arteriosus to provide the radial force to keep the ductus arteriosus open and provide unobstructed blood flow (see Abstract). The term “curved” is being given it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, interpreted to mean “to have or take a turn, change, or deviation from a straight line or plane surface without sharp breaks,” (see Merriam Webster Online definition 2), “sharp” meaning “having an edge or point that is able to cut or pierce something” (see Google/Oxford Languages definition 1 online), in which the turn is not able to cut or pierce something, and hence the turn is without a sharp break.
PNG
media_image1.png
563
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bosma fails to disclose a plurality of 4 to 8 struts extending from the proximal end connector to the distal end tip, the proximal end connector including one or more retrieval mechanisms, and the elongated strut body portions of each of the 4 to 8 struts engage the ductus arteriosus to prevent invagination into the vascular wall of the ductus arteriosus and thus allow for subsequent retrieval.
A different embodiment of Bosma discloses a proximal end connector and a distal end tip disposed about a longitudinal axis (see annotated proximal end connector and distal end tip in Figure 11 below), each of the struts having a curved proximal strut end and a curved distal strut end wherein the curved proximal strut end and the curved distal strut end extend radially outward from the longitudinal axis and toward one another (see annotated curved proximal strut end, curved distal strut end, and longitudinal axis in Figures 11 below), each of the struts further having an elongated strut body portion that extends from the curved proximal strut end to the curved distal strut end, the elongated strut body portions extending parallel to each other (see annotated elongated strut body portion in Figures 11 below); and a space encompassed by the struts which is completely unobstructed (see annotated unobstructed space in Figure 11). This embodiment of Bosma teaches the proximal end connector including one or more retrieval mechanisms (see annotated retrieval mechanism in Figure 11 below) while the elongated strut body portions of each of the 4 to 8 struts engage the vessel to prevent invagination into the vascular wall of the ductus arteriosus and thus allow for subsequent retrieval (see column 4, lines 50-59).
PNG
media_image2.png
355
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the stent of Bosma be removable via a hook and snare mechanism using hook 18, as taught by the embodiment of Bosma with retrievable hook 60, and therefore not invaginate into the vascular wall to allow for retrieval, as it is disclosed that combinations and modifications of the of the embodiments of Bosma would not depart from the scope of the invention (see column 5, lines 3-11).
Raychev discloses a retrievable stent configured to be positioned across a blood vessel patient to keep the vessel open and ensure adequate blood flow (see column 2, lines 37-39), the stent comprising: a proximal end connector and a distal end tip disposed about a longitudinal axis (see annotated proximal end connector, distal end tip, and axis in Figure 8 below, see also column 6, lines 34-63 denoting that like features are designated with like reference numerals with apostrophes added), the proximal end connector including a proximal end connector lumen that runs the length of the proximal end connector (see column 2, lines 59-65 denoting that proximal end connector 406 encompasses shaft 300), and the distal end tip having a distal end tip lumen that runs the length of the distal end tip (see Figure 2 showing that the shaft 300 distal end 302 is within the lumen of the distal end tip 402, as it extends out the distal end tip 402, see also 302” in Figure 8 below showing that the distal end of 402” must have a lumen to accommodate 302” for 302” to be positioned as shown), and a plurality of 4 to 8 struts extending from the proximal end connector to the distal end tip (see column 4, lines 17-31) each of the struts having a curved proximal strut end and a curved distal strut end wherein the curved proximal strut end and the curved distal strut end extend radially outward from the longitudinal axis and toward one another (see annotated Fig. 8 below). Raychev teaches a plurality of 4 to 8 struts extending from the proximal end connector to the distal end tip (see column 4, lines 17-31).
PNG
media_image3.png
625
790
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the stent of Bosma have 4-6 struts, as taught by Raychev, as the modification merely involves a combination of known stent/filter structures according to known methods that obtains a predictable result of an expandable cylindrical stent.
The limitation “wherein, when the stent is positioned in the ductus arteriosus, the curved proximal strut ends and the curved distal strut ends engage the ductus arteriosus to provide the radial force to keep the ductus arteriosus open and provide unobstructed blood flow while the elongated strut body portions of each of the 4 to 8 struts engage the ductus arteriosus to prevent invagination into the vascular wall of the ductus arteriosus and thus allow for subsequent retrieval” is a functional limitation that is given limited patentable weight. The prior art is not required to disclose keeping a ductus arteriosus open to provide unobstructed blood flow, while preventing invagination to allow for retrieval, but merely have the capability of being used in the recited manner. In this case, Bosma as modified discloses the vascular device placed in a blood vessel and includes all of the structural requirements. The Bosma as modified device has dimensions material makeup (see column 3, lines 49-52) suitable for the purpose of being positioned in the ductus arteriosus and is therefore considered to be capable of keeping the ductus arteriosus open for adequate blood flow (see Abstract denoting that the stent holds the vessel open) and to engage the ductus arteriosus to prevent invagination into the vascular wall of the ductus arteriosus and thus allow for subsequent retrieval (see column 4, lines 50-59 denoting that the device is able to be safety removed, and therefore does not invaginate into the vascular wall of the vessel it’s in).
The intended use recited in the preamble “configured to be positioned across the ductus arteriosus in a pediatric human patient to keep the ductus arteriosus open and ensure adequate blood flow” has been considered but deemed not to impose any structural difference between the claimed invention and Bosma as modified’s device. Bosma as modified’s device is structured as claimed and is therefore capable of being used for being positioned across the ductus arteriosus in a pediatric human patient to keep the ductus arteriosus open and ensure adequate blood flow.
Regarding Claim 2, Bosma as modified discloses the stent of claim 1.
Bosma fails to disclose wherein the curved proximal strut end and the curved distal strut end comprise a sigmoidal curve
Raychev teaches wherein the curved proximal strut end and the curved distal strut end comprise a sigmoidal curve (see curve of curved proximal and distal strut ends in Figure 8 above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the curved strut ends of Bosma comprise a sigmoidal curve, as taught by Raychev, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component as desired for the intended application.
Regarding Claim 3, Bosma as modified discloses the stent of claim 1, wherein the one or more retrieval mechanisms comprises a hook structure for receiving a snare (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 6, Raychev as modified discloses the stent of claim 1, wherein the lumen of the proximal end connector and the lumen of the distal end tip each have a diameter (see annotated lumens in Figures 1-3 above).
The limitation “the lumens have a diameter large enough such that a guidewire is able to run through their respective lumens” is a functional limitation that is given limited patentable weight. The prior art is not required to disclose a guidewire going into the lumens, but merely have the capability of being used in the recited manner. In this case, Bosma as modified discloses the proximal and distal ends of the device having lumens throughout the tip, and therefore the lumens would be able to receive in a guidewire.
Regarding Claim 7, Raychev as modified discloses the stent of claim 1, comprising 5 struts (see claim 1 rejection above, see also column 4, lines 17-31 of Raychev).
Regarding Claim 8, Raychev as modified discloses the stent of claim 1, comprising 6 struts (see claim 1 rejection above, see also column 4, lines 17-31 of Raychev).
Regarding Claim 9, Bosma as modified discloses the stent of claim 1.
Bosma as modified fails to disclose comprising a length from 15 mm to 30 mm.
Raychev further discloses that the stent comprises a length from 5 mm to 30 mm (see column 4, lines 44-46), a range that overlaps with the claimed range of 15 mm to 30 mm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to have modified the length of Raychev’s stent from between 5 mm to 30 mm to 15 mm to 30 mm as claimed, since 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). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see [0018] of the Instant Application indicating the length can be within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 10, Bosma as modified discloses the stent of claim 1.
Bosma as modified fails to disclose comprising a length from 18 mm to 24 mm.
Raychev further teaches that the stent comprises a length from 5 mm to 30 mm (see column 4, lines 44-46), a range that overlaps with the claimed range of 18 mm to 24 mm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the length of Raychev’s stent from between 5 mm to 30 mm to 18 mm to 24 mm as claimed, since 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). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see [0018] of the Instant Application indicating the length can be within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 11, Raychev as modified discloses the stent of claim 1.
Bosma as modified fails to disclose comprising an outer diameter of from 4 mm to 20 mm.
Raychev further teaches that the stent may be deployed in blood vessels with a diameter between 1.5 mm and 7mm (see column 5, lines 1-3), meaning that the diameter is around this range as well as the stent is meant to press upon the inside of the vessel, a range that overlaps with the claimed range of 4 mm to 20 mm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outer diameter of Raychev’s stent from between 1.5 mm to 7 mm to 4 mm to 20 mm as claimed, since 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). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see [0019] of the Instant Application indicating the outer diameter can be within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 12, Bosma as modified discloses the stent of claim 1.
Bosma as modified fails to disclose comprising an outer diameter of from 6 mm to 10 mm.
Raychev teaches that the stent may be deployed in blood vessels with a diameter between 1.5 mm and 7mm (see column 5, lines 1-3), meaning that the diameter is around this range as well as the stent is meant to press upon the inside of the vessel, a range that overlaps with the claimed range of 6 mm to 10 mm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outer diameter of Raychev’s stent from between 1.5 mm to 7 mm to 6 mm to 10 mm as claimed, since 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). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see [0019] of the Instant Application indicating the outer diameter can be within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 13, Raychev as modified discloses the stent of claim 1, wherein the struts are formed of nitinol (see column 3, lines 49-52).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6241746 B1 (hereafter –Bosma--), in view of US 10390982 B1 (hereafter --Raychev--), in further in view of US 20190069903 A1 (hereafter –Deshmukh--).
Regarding Claim 4, Bosma as modified discloses the stent of claim 1.
Bosma as modified fails to disclose wherein the one or more retrieval mechanisms comprises a one half of a threaded fastener.
Deshmukh discloses a stent (12) with a proximal end connector (16a) and a distal end (see annotated distal end in Figure 2a below) about a longitudinal axis (see annotated axis in Figure 2a below). Deshmukh teaches the proximal end connector includes one or more retrieval mechanisms in the form of a one half of a threaded fastener (see paragraph [0073]; the other half being a female threaded retrieval catheter).
PNG
media_image4.png
237
755
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the proximal end connector of Bosma with a threaded fastener as the retrieval mechanism, as the modification would merely involve the substitution of one known retrieval mechanism (hook as disclosed in Bosma) for another (threaded fastener as disclosed in Deshmukh), as well as by doing so would facilitate handling and retrieval of the device (see paragraph [0073]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6241746 B1 (hereafter –Bosma--) in view of US 10390982 B1 (hereafter --Raychev--), in further in view of US 20070186933 A1 (hereafter –Domingo--).
Regarding Claim 5, Bosma as modified discloses the stent of claim 1.
Bosma as modified fails to disclose the one or more retrieval mechanisms comprising a hook retrieval mechanism and one half of a threaded fastener retrieval mechanism.
Domingo discloses a stent (14) with a proximal end connector (see annotated proximal end connectors in Figures 26A-B and Figure 36 below) and a distal end (see annotated distal end in Figures 26B and 36 below) about a longitudinal axis (see annotated axis in Figures 26A-B and Figure 36 below). A first embodiment of Domingo teaches the proximal end connector includes one or more retrieval mechanisms (a hook retrieval mechanism, see annotated Fig. 26B below) for receiving a snare (102) (see annotated Figure 25B below).
PNG
media_image5.png
188
652
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The embodiment of Figs. 26A-26B of Domingo fails to teach the one or more retrieval mechanisms comprising of a one half of a threaded fastener retrieval mechanism.
A second embodiment of Domingo teaches the one or more retrieval mechanisms comprises one half of a threaded fastener retrieval mechanism (130 in Figure 36, see also paragraph [0089]; the other half being a female threaded 132 retrieval catheter).
PNG
media_image6.png
198
526
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Domingo further teaches that there are many combinations of the disclosed embodiments that can be combined in different ways for a host of applications (see paragraph [0091]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the hook retrieval mechanism of Figs. 26A-26B and the one half of a threaded fastener retrieval mechanism of Fig. 35 onto one proximal end connector, as suggested by Domingo, as by doing so would facilitate allowing the operator the options of repositioning, re-sheathing then repositioning, re-sheathing then removing, or just completely the removing the stent as stated previously through multiple modalities (see paragraphs [0077-0080] and [0087]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARIS MARIE BLASS whose telephone number is (703)756-5375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9 a.m. - 7 p.m. ET.
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, Melanie Tyson can be reached at 571-272-9062. 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.
/PARIS MARIE BLASS/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/MELANIE R TYSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774