Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/606,341

STENT AND AFFIXING METHOD FOR ELEMENT WIRES IN STENT

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Oct 25, 2021
Examiner
WOZNICKI, JACQUELINE
Art Unit
3774
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Pentas Inc.
OA Round
4 (Final)
50%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 50% of resolved cases
50%
Career Allow Rate
465 granted / 937 resolved
-20.4% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+26.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
107 currently pending
Career history
1044
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.6%
-38.4% vs TC avg
§103
46.2%
+6.2% vs TC avg
§102
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
§112
31.3%
-8.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 937 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 10/07/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 6-8 regarding prior art, Applicant argues amendments overcome the rejection of record since Sugimoto teaches a back side with fixing material is located on parts other than the front. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that the intersection is understood to be only the part of the two strands which intersect or overlap, and not extend towards the individual strands themselves. As can be seen in Sugimoto figures 4-5, the intersection item 4 has no fixing material located thereon from the back view. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1-2, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto as is applied above in view of in view of in view of Concagh et al. (US 20140172074 A1) hereinafter known as Concagh. Regarding claim 1 Sugimoto discloses a stent (Figures 1-2; [0002]) comprising: multiple strands ([0016] two or more fibers) woven in a spiral shape (Figures 1-2; [0014] spiral), wherein at an intersection between crossing two of the strands (Figure 4 item 4), the intersection is fixed by a fixing material (Figures 3-4 item 5) having elasticity ([0023] deformable resin), the fixing material being resin ([0023] deformable resin), only a front side of the intersection is fixed by the fixing material (see Figure 5 item 4, which shows the back side of the intersection not being fixed by the fixing material), and the fixing material is elongated only along an area consisting of: a first outside surface of one of the two of the strands positioned on a lower side from an other one of the two strands, a second outside surface of the one strand and an outside surface of the other strand at the intersection between the first and second outside surface (see Annotated Figure 4 below: the three areas of elongation are marked with double arrows. The first elongation is on the first outer surface of the one strand which is positioned on the lower side from the other strand; the second elongation is on the other side of the intersection on the same strand and the outside surface; and the third is positioned at the outside surface of the other strand at the intersection, between the two outside surfaces (left, right)), but is silent with regards to the fixing material having a shape memory property. PNG media_image1.png 364 565 media_image1.png Greyscale However, regarding claim 1, Concagh teaches fixing materials can have shape memory properties ([0028]). Sugimoto and Concagh are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely stents. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the stent of Sugimoto by having the resin material have shape memory properties as is taught by Concagh since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. See MPEP 2144.07. Regarding claim 2 the Sugimoto Concagh Combination teaches the stent of claim 1 substantially as is claimed, wherein Sugimoto further discloses the intersection positioned in a vicinity of each end of the stent is fixed by the fixing material (Figures 1-2). Regarding claim 14 the Sugimoto Concagh Combination teaches the stent of claim 1 substantially as is claimed, wherein Sugimoto further discloses the fixing material is not formed on a back side of the intersection (Figure 5 shows the intersection 4 free from fixing material; any fixing material seen in figure 5, showing the back side, is seen not to be at the intersection 4). Claim(s) 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto and Concagh as is applied above, further in view of Pang et al. (CN 107427377 A) hereinafter known as Pang. Regarding claim 13 the Sugimoto Concagh Combination teaches the stent of claim 1 substantially as is claimed, but is silent with regards to the fixing material being a linear shape. However, regarding claim 13 Pang teaches that connections between two overlapping strands can have a linear shape (Figure 6b). Sugimoto and Pang are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely stents. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the stent of the Sugimoto Concagh Combination so that the fixing material is in the form of a linear shape as is taught by Pang since the courts have held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success results in a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 (I)(E). In this case, using any shape of adhesive would have been considered obvious to the person of ordinary skill. Regarding claim 15 the Sugimoto Concagh Combination teaches the stent of claim 13 substantially as is claimed, wherein Sugimoto further discloses the fixing material is not formed on a back side of the intersection (Figure 5 shows the intersection 4 free from fixing material; any fixing material seen in figure 5, showing the back side, is seen not to be at the intersection 4). 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 extension fee 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 Jacqueline Woznicki whose telephone number is (571)270-5603. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm EST. 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, Jerrah Edwards can be reached on 408-918-7557. 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. /Jacqueline Woznicki/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 10/16/25
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 25, 2021
Application Filed
Oct 29, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 08, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 16, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 14, 2025
Interview Requested
Mar 26, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 26, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 09, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 28, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 20, 2025
Interview Requested
Sep 02, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 02, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 07, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 20, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588992
EASY-TO-CONTROL INTERVENTIONAL INSTRUMENT DELIVERY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582526
MEDICAL IMPLANT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569336
CATHETER SYSTEM FOR IMPLANTATION OF PROSTHETIC HEART VALVES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12521226
SURGICAL FIXATION SYSTEMS AND ASSOCIATED METHODS FOR PERFORMING TISSUE REPAIRS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12508136
TRANSFEMORAL PROSTHESIS FOR WALKING, SITTING-STANDING, STAIR CLIMBING
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
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
50%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+26.6%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 937 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