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 .
The first inventor to file provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ) apply to any application for patent, and to any patent issuing thereon, that contains or contained at any time—
(A) a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013 wherein the effective filing date is:
(i) if subparagraph (ii) does not apply, the actual filing date of the patent or the application for the patent containing a claim to the invention; or
(ii) the filing date of the earliest application for which the patent or application is entitled, as to such invention, to a right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119, 365(a), or 365(b) or to the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c); or
(B) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120 , 121, or 365(c), to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time a claim as defined in paragraph (A), above.
Status of the Claims
Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 is/are pending. Claim(s) 2 is/are canceled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). This applies to all arguments regarding features not cited by the argued prior art (resin in Gilmartin, specific knit structures in Matsumoto, covering of Gilmartin).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., two or more filaments fill a space formed by a loop portion) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., fibers spread in the direction around the axis to close the space inside the loop) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the space within the loop is filled in the expanded state) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding modifying the coating of Gilmartin (page 11 of Applicant’s Response on 1/26/2026, herein “Response”), these arguments are directed to a rejection not made, and therefore are moot.
With respect to the location of the resin (Response, pages 11-12), the Examiner notes the material of Matsumoto is the same as Applicant’s material (polyurethane, see prior art rejection section below) and thus has the same physical properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)).
Applicant’s arguments regarding Matsumoto teaching away from the combination made are moot because they are directed to an embodiment in which the entire device is dipped in the adhesive rather than the cited embodiment where only the connections have adhesive applied to them.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 6 recites “enclose inside thereof”, which should be “enclose an inside thereof”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Product By Process
The Examiner recognizes claim 1 as a "product-by-process" claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113).
Specifically, “the resin is stored between the fibers at the connection part by a capillary phenomenon caused by immersing” is the “product-by-process language.
As a product claim, Examiner has determined claim 1 require the artificial blood vessel to comprise the following structural elements in addition to those in the claims from which they depend: the structures of claim 1 where the resin is located between the fibers at the connection part.
In the prior art rejection in this Office action, Examiner considers claim 1 to be met when a reference teaches these structural limitations.
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 1 and 3-4 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.
Claim 1, line 16 recites “the structure body”. It is unclear which structure body is referred back to as first, second, and a plurality of structure bodies are introduced. For purposes of examination the Examiner considers this language to be met when any of the previously introduced structure bodies meets the claimed limitation.
Claim 1, line 20 recites “between fibers”. It is unclear if these fibers are part of the earlier introduced plurality of fibers or are different fibers. For purposes of examination the Examiner considers this language to be “between fibers of the plurality of fibers”.
Claim 1, line 25 recites “the yarn does not intersect with each other”. As only one yarn is introduced earlier in the claim, it is unclear what is claimed. For purposes of examination the Examiner considers this language to be “the plurality of fibers do not intersect with each other”.
Claim 1, line 27 recites “a spread”. It is unclear if this limitation is a noun or verb and if it refers back to “spread” earlier in the claim. For purposes of examination the Examiner considers this language to be “the fibers are spread apart in”.
Claim 1, line 27 recites “the structure body”. It is unclear which structure body is referred back to as first, second, and a plurality of structure bodies are introduced. For purposes of examination the Examiner considers this language to be met when any of the previously introduced structure bodies meets the claimed limitation.
Claim 1, line 31 recites “a spread”. It is unclear if this limitation is a noun or verb and if it refers back to “spread” or “a spread” earlier in the claim. For purposes of examination the Examiner considers this language to be “the fibers … so as to be spread apart …”.
Claim 1, lines 33-34 recites “the structure body”. It is unclear which structure body is referred back to as first, second, and a plurality of structure bodies are introduced. For purposes of examination the Examiner considers this language to be met when any of the previously introduced structure bodies meets the claimed limitation.
Claim 1, line 34 recites “an external force”. It is unclear if this is the same or different than that introduced earlier in the claims. For purposes of examination the Examiner considers this language to be met when some external force meets the claimed requirement.
Claim 1, line 34 recites “the structure body element”. It is unclear which one is being referred back to as multiple are introduced earlier in the claims. For purposes of examination the Examiner considers this language to be met when any of the claimed structure body elements meets the claimed limitation.
Claim 1, lines 35-36 recites “the external force”. It is unclear which of the multiple introduced earlier in the claim is being referred back to.
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected as dependent from a rejected claim.
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.
Functional language and intended use language is presented in italicized font.
Claims 1 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilmartin, et al (Gilmartin) (US 2019/0307586 A1) in view of Matsumoto, et al (Matsumoto) (EP 0390921 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Gilmartin teaches an artificial blood vessel (e.g. abstract, ), in which a plurality of structure bodies (e.g. annotated Figure 1(1) below), each configured so that a plurality of structure body elements (e.g. annotated Figure 1(1) below) are arranged around an axis (e.g. annotated Figure 1(1) below), are connected in an axial direction (e.g. annotated Figure 1(1) below),
wherein the structure body elements each have an enclosure part formed in a loop (e.g. annotated Figure 1(1) below; space in the loop) so as to enclose {an} inside thereof with yarn (e.g. annotated Figure 1(1) below) in which a plurality of fibers are bundled (e.g. [0049], multi-filament embodiment),
wherein the artificial blood vessel has a connection part (e.g. annotated Figure 1(1) below) in which the structure body element of a first structure body (e.g. annotated Figure 1(1) below) and a structure body element of a second structure body (e.g. annotated Figure 1(1) below) adjacent the first structure body (e.g. annotated Figure 1(1) below) are connected in the axial direction (e.g. annotated Figure 1(1) below) in a state in which the structure body element of the first structure body and the structure body element of the second structure body come into contact with each other (e.g. annotated Figure 1(1) below),
wherein the plurality of fibers of the yarn constituting the enclosure part spread in a direction around the axis of the structure body so as to close a space inside the enclosure part (as there are multiple fibers/filaments within the yarn, they are able to be spaced apart by an object wedged between the fibers/filaments pushing at least one of the fibers/filaments into the space within the enclosure part).
Gilmartin discloses the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach the resin as claimed.
Matsumoto teaches a vascular blood prosthesis (e.g. abstract),
wherein the enclosure part and the connection part are covered with resin (e.g. pages 8-9, the adhesive is stored in the connection part, part of the enclosure part makes up the connection part therefore part of the enclosure part is also covered with resin),
wherein the resin is stored between fibers at the connection part (e.g. abstract, pages 8-9) by a capillary phenomenon caused by immersing (see product-by-process section above) so that movements of the plurality of fibers of the yarn are restricted at a root of the loop of the enclosure part (as the root is in the connection part it is covered by the resin and thus restricted in movement) and the resin is stored in the connection part rather than in parts of the enclosure part located between a pair of connection parts in the axial direction (the resin is placed at the connection part and not at the enclosure part between connection parts as discussed supra, thereby meeting this limitation), in which the yarn does not intersect with each other (e.g. annotated Figure 1(1) below, as the enclosure part if a space, there are no intersecting yarns in this part),
wherein the resin has rigidity for maintaining a state in which the fibers have a spread in the direction around the axis of the structure body when no external force is applied (e.g. page 8, in the location where the adhesive is applied, that adhesive holds the fibers in place when no external force is applied) so that the plurality of fibers in the yarn are held between the pair of connection parts in the axial direction in a state in which the plurality of fibers of the yarn are separated from each other so as to have a spread in the direction around the axis (as both ends of the structure body element are fixed in place by the adhesive, the configuration of the yarn between sections is also held in place when no external force is applied to the regions), and
wherein the resin has elasticity which allows for movement of the fibers to narrow a space between the fibers in the direction around the axis of the structure body when an external force is applied to the structure body element (a sharp object such as a needle is able to be placed through the resin and between the fibers; when placed in this location the fibers are displaced relative to each other and thus take up previously empty space thereby narrowing the space between other circumferentially adjacent fibers near the insertion location) and allows for restoration of positions of the moved fibers when the external force is removed (when the object is removed the fibers would move back to the location they were displaced from).
The Examiner notes the adhesive of Matsumoto is polyurethane (e.g. page 8) and thus is expected to have the same chemical properties as the disclosed and claimed (claim 3) material (MPEP 2112.01(II)).
Gilmartin and Matsumoto are concerned with the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, namely blood vessel prosthesis of knitted materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as taught by Gilmartin by incorporating the resin, as taught by Matsumoto, in order to create a restorative material that is not unraveled in the body (e.g. Matsumoto, page 3, last paragraph).
PNG
media_image1.png
704
1058
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1(1), Gilmartin
Regarding Claim 3, the resin is a polyurethane elastomer (discussed supra for claim 1).
Regarding Claim 4, the connection portion comprises an intersection part where the yarn of respective structure body elements connected with each other intersects (e.g. annotated Figure 1(1) above), and wherein the resin is provided at the intersection point (discussed supra for claim 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE A LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7044. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM, MST.
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 at (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.
/LESLIE A LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 8/13/2026
Prosecution Insights