DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 19 of claim 1, “interposed” should read “interposable” to more accurately reflect the functional limitation. Applicant is not actively trying to positively recite the arteriorvenous fistula. These amendments are made in contrast to claim 2 which includes similar limitations but recite what happens in first and second positions.
On line 21 of claim 1, “fixed” should read “fixable” for the same reasons directly above.
On line 23 of claim 1, “fixed” should read “fixable” for the same reasons directly above.
On line 26 of claim 1, “arranged” should read “arrangeable” for the same reasons directly above.
On line 10 of claim 3, “through-hole wherein” should read “through-hole, wherein” to correct a minor typographical error.
On line 9 of claim 3, “a relative main through-hole” should read “a second relative main through-hole” to differentiate from the other “relative main through-hole” recited in claim 3.
On line 10 of claim 3, please insert a comma before “wherein”.
On line 10 of claim 3, “second further plate” should read “second plate” to provide proper antecedent basis.
In regard to claim 6, “the operating edges” should be amended to “the two operating edges” to provide proper antecedent basis.
On line 8 of claim 8, “the wall” should read “the outer wall of the blood vessel” to provide proper antecedent basis.
On line 5 of claim 9, “the wall” should read “the outer wall” to provide proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2-9 a 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.
In regard to claim 2, the “and/or” renders the claims indefinite because the “or condition cannot be met for the second position alone. If the “or” option is chosen, it is unclear if “a second position” still implies a first position. The examiner suggests amending “and/or” to “and”.
In regard to claim 3, the use of “and/or” creates too many possibilities that seem to contradict each other. The examiner suggests amending both recitations of “and/or” in claim 3 to “and”.
In regard to claim 4, there is one recitation of “and/or”. The examiner notes that claim 4 depends on claim 3 so each “and/or” adds a layer of confusion.
In regard to claims 5-7, the examiner suggests amending each recitation of “and/or” to “and”. The same issues exist as described above.
In further regard to claim 4, there is no antecedent basis for “the longitudinal development axis” on lines 4 and 6. It is unclear what the longitudinal development axis would be.
In further regard to claim 4, it is unclear if the multiple recited “relative second faces” and “relative first faces” are the same structure.
In further regard to claim 7, it is unclear what “the relative second portion of the relative perimeter” on line 12 refers to because there are two relative second portions recited.
Any dependent claim is rejected by virtue of its dependency on a rejected independent claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 is allowed.
Claims 2-9 will be considered allowable upon resolution of the 112 rejections and objections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE J STIGELL whose telephone number is (571)272-8759. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30 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, Michael Tsai can be reached at 571-270-5246. 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.
THEODORE J. STIGELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3783
/THEODORE J STIGELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783