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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 9-14, and 28-39 remain
pending. Claim 8 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 34 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the argument that claim 28 is no longer read upon by the prior art following the amendments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation “wherein the shunt is configured for placement within a created opening in a tissue wall” leaves room for broad interpretation and does not specify when the hole was “created”. The Examiner is giving the term “created opening” a broad interpretation, reading upon an opening that a valve forms, the opening being created when the heart is formed. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to include the “creation” of the opening in the method as in the other independent claims, as “a created opening” is extremely broad.
Additionally, the Examiner notes that Applicant does not define “shunt” in the specification, and looking at Merriam Webster Online, shunt means “a means or mechanism for turning or thrusting aside: such as a surgical passage created to divert a bodily fluid (such as blood) from one vessel or part to another”. The device of Subramanian, the prior art that is the primary reference, does the following: “In addition to improving coaption depth, implantation of devices in accordance with the present invention preferably also increase the width of coaptation along the coaption plane. This may be accomplished, for example, by utilizing an implant having a widened portion for contacting the leaflets in the area of coaption” (see paragraph [0107]), and the specific embodiment is disclosed as “the transvalvular band will typically be provided with a curvature such that it advances the mitral valve leaflets in the direction of the ventricle and provides for physiologic coaptation.” (see paragraph [0199]). Due to the device being able to advance the leaflets to a certain direction “which can be considered “turning” or thrusting aside” to create a passage to create blood flow,” The Examiner asserts that the device of the prior art (Subramanian) could, under shunt being given its broadest reasonable interpretation, be considered a “shunt”. (See also excerpts “there is illustrated a transvalvular band 366 having a central portion 368 for spanning the coaptive edges of the mitral valve” paragraph [0195] and “spaced apart to increase the width of the contact footprint with the valve leaflet but permit blood flow therethrough” paragraph [0096]).
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 limitations use 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: “attachment mechanism” (claims 4, 6, and 34).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 “attachment mechanism” (claims 4, 6, and 34) can include a tab, hook, loop, notch, peg, magnet, strap, pin, hole, socket, and/or other mechanism configured to join separate portions of the implant (see paragraph [0072] of the Instant Application).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 28 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20170105839 A1 (hereafter -- Subramanian--).
Regarding Claim 28, Subramanian discloses a method of preparing a shunt for percutaneous delivery comprising: providing a shunt forming an elongate body and one or more anchors extending from the elongate body (see annotated elongate body and anchors in Figures 50-51 below), the elongate body and the one or more anchors having a continuous structure (see annotated elongate body and anchors in Figures 50-51 below); wherein the shunt is configured for placement within a created opening in a tissue wall to provide and maintain a blood flow path through the opening (see paragraphs [0114], [0127], [0193], the “created” opening being the valve, the “creation” happening when the heart was formed and/or forced open by blood flow); rolling the elongate body and the one or more anchors (see Figures 50-51 below, see also paragraph [0193]), and inserting the shunt into a catheter for delivery to the opening in the tissue wall (see annotated catheter 360 in Figures 50-51 below, see also paragraph [0193])). The Examiner recommends further defining the creation of an opening, as “a created opening” is extremely broad.
PNG
media_image1.png
572
944
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 30, Subramanian as modified discloses the method of claim 28, wherein the elongate body is shape-set to a tubular shape and the one or more anchors are shape-set to extend perpendicularly from the elongate body (see annotated elongate body in the rolled up position being tubular, see also annotated anchoring arms in Figure 51A above).
Regarding Claim 31, Subramanian as modified discloses the method of claim 28, wherein the shunt comprises a first end and a second end, wherein rolling the elongate body and the one or more anchors causes at least some overlap between the first end and the second end (see Figure 50 above, in which the two ends do not directly overlap or touch, but do overlap in the sense that they “occupy the same area in part” (see Merriam Webster online)).
Regarding Claim 32, Subramanian as modified discloses the method of claim 28, further comprising wherein the shunt is configured to unroll to an expanded profile in response to removal from the catheter, and wherein a width of the shunt in the expanded profile exceeds a width of the catheter (see paragraph [0193]).
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, 7, 11-14, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170105839 A1 (hereafter -- Subramanian--), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 20170106176 A1 (hereafter –Taft--).
Regarding Claim 1, Subramanian discloses a method comprising: providing a shunt forming an elongate body and one or more anchors extending from the elongate body (see annotated elongate body and anchors in Figures 50-51 below), the elongate body and the one or more anchors having a continuous structure (see annotated elongate body and anchors in Figures 50-51 below); wherein the elongate body and the one or more anchors are configured to be rolled to reduce a profile of the shunt (see Figures 50-51 below, see also paragraph [0193]); delivering the shunt within a catheter to the heart, wherein the shunt is in a rolled form within the catheter during delivery (see annotated catheter 360 in Figures 50-51 below, see also paragraph [0193])); delivering the catheter to a treatment location within a human body (see paragraph [0193]); and removing the shunt from the catheter and deploying the shunt within the opening to provide and maintain a blood flow path through the opening (see paragraphs [0114], [0121], and [0193]).
PNG
media_image1.png
572
944
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Subramanian fails to disclose creating an opening in a tissue wall of a heart and delivering the shunt to the created opening in the wall of the heart.
Taft discloses a method comprising providing a shunt forming an elongate body, wherein the method involves compressing the shunt to fit into a delivery catheter to deliver to the heart of a patient (see Abstract, see also paragraphs [0047] and [0086]). Taft discloses creating an opening in a tissue wall of a heart and delivering the shunt to the created opening in the wall of the heart (see paragraphs [0015], [0016], and [0019]-[0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for the method of Subramanian to further include creating an opening in a tissue wall of a heart and delivering the shunt to the created opening in the wall of the heart, as by doing so would that allows blood to flow through the shunt from the pulmonary artery into the right atrium if the pressure differential causes flow in that direction, which attenuates pressure and reduces damage to the pulmonary artery taught by Taft (see paragraph [0072]).
Regarding Claim 7, Subramanian as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a width of the shunt in the expanded and unrolled profile exceeds a width of the catheter (see paragraph [0193]).
Regarding Claim 11, Subramanian as modified discloses the method of claim 1.
Subramanian as modified fails to disclose wherein the tissue wall is a pulmonary artery, and wherein the shunt is sized for placement at least partially within the pulmonary artery and a right atrium, a left atrium, or a blood vessel to shunt blood between the pulmonary artery and the right atrium, the left atrium, or the blood vessel.
Taft teaches wherein the tissue wall is a pulmonary artery, and wherein the shunt is sized for placement at least partially within the pulmonary artery and a right atrium, a left atrium, or a blood vessel to shunt blood between the pulmonary artery and the right atrium, the left atrium, or the blood vessel (see paragraphs [0047] and [0072]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the tissue wall is a pulmonary artery, and wherein the shunt is sized for placement at least partially within the pulmonary artery and a right atrium, a left atrium, or a blood vessel to shunt blood between the pulmonary artery and the right atrium, the left atrium, or the blood vessel, as by doing so attenuates pressure spikes in the pulmonary artery (see paragraph [0072]).
Regarding Claim 12, Subramanian as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the shunt is at least partially composed of Nitinol (see paragraph [0197]).
Regarding Claim 13, Subramanian as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more anchors are anchoring arms (see annotated anchoring arms in Figure 51A above).
Regarding Claim 14, Subramanian as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the elongate body is shape-set to a tubular shape and the one or more anchors are shape-set to extend perpendicularly from the elongate body (see annotated elongate body in the rolled up configuration being tubular, and see the anchoring arms in the expanded configuration being perpendicular to the elongate body in Figure 51A above).
Regarding Claim 33, Subramanian discloses the method of claim 28.
Subramanian fails to disclose wherein the tissue wall is a pulmonary artery, and wherein the shunt is sized for placement at least partially within the pulmonary artery and a right atrium, a left atrium, or a blood vessel to shunt blood between the pulmonary artery and the right atrium, the left atrium, or the blood vessel.
Taft teaches wherein the tissue wall is a pulmonary artery, and wherein the shunt is sized for placement at least partially within the pulmonary artery and a right atrium, a left atrium, or a blood vessel to shunt blood between the pulmonary artery and the right atrium, the left atrium, or the blood vessel (see paragraphs [0047] and [0072]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the tissue wall is a pulmonary artery, and wherein the shunt is sized for placement at least partially within the pulmonary artery and a right atrium, a left atrium, or a blood vessel to shunt blood between the pulmonary artery and the right atrium, the left atrium, or the blood vessel, as by doing so attenuates pressure spikes in the pulmonary artery (see paragraph [0072]).
Claims 2-6, 9-10, 29, and 34-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170105839 A1 (hereafter -- Subramanian--), as applied to claim 28 above, in view of US 20170106176 A1 (hereafter –Taft--), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of US 20090143713 A1 (hereafter --Van Dam--).
Regarding Claim 2, Subramanian as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the shunt comprises a first end and a second end (see annotated first and second end in Figures 50-51 above).
Subramanian fails to disclose wherein the first end of the shunt is configured to detach from the second end of the shunt to facilitate rolling the shunt.
Van Dam discloses a method comprising: rolling a shunt to reduce a profile of the shunt (see Figure 12A below, see also paragraph [0074]), the shunt comprising a first end and a second end (see annotated second and first end in Figure 12A below); inserting the shunt into a catheter (see paragraphs [0023] and [0084]); delivering the catheter to a treatment location within a human body (see paragraph [0085]); and removing the shunt from the catheter (see paragraph [0085]). Van Dam teaches the method further comprising wherein the first end of the implant is configured to detach from the second end of the shunt (see paragraph [0074] denoting that the preparation of the implant may include cutting the tube wall, rolling up the implant, then rejoining the edges to form a larger diameter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the method further comprising wherein the first end of the shunt is configured to detach from the second end of the shunt, since applying the known technique taught by Van Dam of starting with a tubular structure of an implant and detaching two ends to then rolling it back up to deliver to the method of delivering the implant of Subramanian would have yielded predicable results, namely, a tubular implant that is then cut to form a flat implant with two ends.
The intended use recited in the claim (“to facilitate rolling the elongate body and the one or more anchors”) has been considered but deemed not to impose any structural difference between the claimed invention and Subramanian as modified’s method. Subramanian as modified’s method is structured as claimed and is therefore capable of facilitating the rolling of the elongate body and the one or more anchors.
Regarding Claim 3, Subramanian as modified discloses the method of claim 2, wherein detaching the first end from the second end involves cutting the shunt (see claim 2 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 4, Subramanian as modified discloses the method of claim 2, wherein detaching the first end from the second end involves disengaging an attachment mechanism at the first end (see claim 2 rejection above, the attachment mechanism being the physical connection between the two sends prior to cutting the wall of the implant, the attachment mechanism being interpreted under 112f, in which this mechanism can be interpreted as “other mechanism configured to join separate portions of the implant”).
Regarding Claim 5, Subramanian as modified discloses the method of claim 2.
Subramanian fails to disclose wherein the first end is configured to attach the second end after the shunt is removed from the catheter.
Van Dam teaches wherein the first end is configured to attach the second end after the shunt is removed from the catheter (see paragraph [0074], see also Figure 12A(2) denoting the two ends being connected again after delivery and expanding to bigger diameter “D”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the method further comprising wherein the first end is configured to attach the second end after the shunt is removed from the catheter, as doing so would form a complete and sealed tubular structure at deployment (see paragraph [0074]).
Regarding Claim 6, Subramanian as modified discloses the method of claim 5, wherein attaching the first end to the second end involves engaging an attachment mechanism at the first end (see claim 5 above, the attachment mechanism being interpreted under 112f, in which this mechanism can be interpreted as “other mechanism configured to join separate portions of the implant).
Regarding Claim 9, Subramanian as modified discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the elongate body and the one or more anchors have at least some overlap between the first end and the second end in the rolled form of the shunt (see Figure 50 above, in which the two ends do not directly overlap or touch, but do overlap in the sense that they “occupy the same area in part” (see Merriam Webster online)).
Regarding Claim 10, Subramanian as modified discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the elongate body and the one or more anchors have no overlap between the first end and the second end in the rolled form of the shunt (see Figure 50 above, in which they do not directly touch and therefore do not “extend over or past and cover a part of” (see Merriam Webster online)).
Regarding Claim 29, Subramanian as modified discloses the method of claim 28.
Subramanian fails to disclose wherein the shunt comprises a first end and a second end, and wherein the first end is configured to attach to the second end after removal of the shunt from the catheter.
Van Dam teaches wherein the shunt comprises a first end and a second end, and wherein the first end is configured to attach to the second end after removal of the shunt from the catheter (see paragraph [0074], see also Figure 12A(2) denoting the two ends being connected again after delivery and expanding to bigger diameter “D”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the method further comprising wherein the shunt comprises a first end and a second end, and wherein the first end is configured to attach to the second end after removal of the shunt from the catheter, as doing so would form a complete and sealed tubular structure at deployment (see paragraph [0074]).
Regarding Claim 34, Subramanian discloses a method comprising: providing a shunt forming an elongate body and one or more anchors extending from the elongate body (see annotated elongate body and anchors in Figures 50-51 below), the shunt comprising a first end and a second end (see annotated first and second end in Figures 50-51 below); the elongate body and the one or more anchors having a continuous structure (see annotated elongate body and anchors in Figures 50-51 below); wherein the elongate body and the one or more anchors are configured to be rolled to reduce a profile of the shunt (see Figures 50-51 below, see also paragraph [0193]); delivering the shunt into a catheter to an opening (valve) in the heart, wherein the shunt is in a rolled form within the catheter during delivery (see annotated catheter 360 in Figures 50-51 below, see also paragraph [0193])); and removing the shunt from the catheter to allow the shunt to expand (see paragraph [0193]); deploying the shunt within the opening to provide and maintain a blood flow path through the opening (see paragraphs [0114], [0121], and [0193]).
PNG
media_image1.png
572
944
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Subramanian fails to disclose the first end having one or more attachment mechanisms to alternately join with and detach from the second end; and attaching the first end to the second end via the one or more attachment mechanisms and creating an opening in a tissue wall of a heart; delivering the shunt within a catheter to the opening in the tissue wall.
Taft discloses a method comprising providing a shunt forming an elongate body, wherein the method involves compressing the shunt to fit into a delivery catheter to deliver to the heart of a patient (see Abstract, see also paragraphs [0047] and [0086]). Taft discloses creating an opening in a tissue wall of a heart and delivering the shunt to the created opening in the wall of the heart (see paragraphs [0015], [0016], and [0019]-[0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for the method of Subramanian to further include creating an opening in a tissue wall of a heart and delivering the shunt to the created opening in the wall of the heart, as by doing so would that allows blood to flow through the shunt from the pulmonary artery into the right atrium if the pressure differential causes flow in that direction, which attenuates pressure and reduces damage to the pulmonary artery taught by Taft (see paragraph [0072]).
Subramanian further fails to disclose the first end having one or more attachment mechanisms to alternately join with and detach from the second end; and attaching the first end to the second end via the one or more attachment mechanisms.
Van Dam teaches further comprising the first end having one or more attachment mechanisms to alternately join with and detach from the second end; and attaching the first end to the second end via the one or more attachment mechanisms (see paragraph [0074], see also Figure 12A(2) denoting the two ends being connected again after delivery and expanding to bigger diameter “D”, the attachment mechanism being the physical connection between the two sends prior to cutting the wall of the implant, the attachment mechanism being interpreted under 112f, in which this mechanism can be interpreted as “other mechanism configured to join separate portions of the implant”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the method further comprising the first end having one or more attachment mechanisms to alternately join with and detach from the second end; and attaching the first end to the second end via the one or more attachment mechanisms, as doing so would enable the implant to form a complete and sealed tubular structure at deployment (see paragraph [0074]).
Regarding Claim 35, Subramanian as modified discloses the method of claim 34.
Subramanian as modified fails to disclose wherein the first end of the shunt is configured to detached from the second end of the shunt to facilitate rolling the shunt.
Van Dam teaches wherein the first end of the shunt is configured to detached from the second end of the shunt (see paragraph [0074] denoting that the preparation of the implant may include cutting the tube wall, rolling up the implant, then rejoining the edges to form a larger diameter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the method further comprising wherein the first end of the shunt is configured to detached from the second end of the shunt, since applying the known technique taught by Van Dam of starting with a tubular structure of an implant and detaching two ends to then rolling it back up to deliver to the method of delivering the implant of Subramanian would have yielded predicable results, namely, a tubular implant that is then cut to form a flat implant with two ends.
The intended use recited in the claim (“to facilitate rolling the shunt”) has been considered but deemed not to impose any structural difference between the claimed invention and Subramanian as modified’s method. Subramanian as modified’s method is structured as claimed and is therefore capable of facilitating the rolling of the shunt.
Regarding Claim 36, Subramanian as modified discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the shunt has at least some overlap between the first end and the second end in the rolled form of the shunt (see Figure 50 above, in which the two ends do not directly overlap or touch, but do overlap in the sense that they “occupy the same area in part” (see Merriam Webster online)).
Regarding Claim 37, Subramanian as modified discloses the method of claim 34, further comprising wherein the shunt is configured to unroll to an expanded profile upon removal of the catheter, wherein a width of the shunt in the expanded profile exceeds a width of the catheter (see paragraph [0193]).
Regarding Claim 38, Subramanian as modified discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the shunt is configured to unroll to an expanded profile, wherein a width of the shunt in the expanded profile exceeds a width of the catheter (see paragraph [0193]).
Regarding Claim 39, Subramanian as modified discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the shunt naturally assumes a generally flat form (see paragraph [0193], see also flat form in Figures 51A and 51B above).
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
/SARAH W ALEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights