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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 01/20/2026. As directed by the response: claims 1-18 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9-16 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Shaffer et al. (2010/0122698) “Shaffer” and claims 8 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer et al. (2010/0122698) “Shaffer” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On Page 7 of the response, it’s stated that at paragraph [0048], Shaffer describes how the backward extending tips 18 engage the mesh 12 of the overlapping outer edge portion 24 to provide an additional interconnection between the inner and outer edge portions 22, 24. The Office Action has not established how the teachings of Shaffer disclose or suggest a ratchet finger being configured to permit the first longitudinal edge to slide thereover in a first direction upon radial expansion of the expandable stent, and the ratchet finger being configured to engage the first longitudinal edge and inhibit relative motion between the ratchet finger and the first longitudinal edge in a second direction opposite the first direction, the ratchet finger thereby inhibiting radial contraction of the expandable stent as set forth in claim 1.
This is not found persuasive because claim 1 requires “the ratchet finger being configured to permit the first longitudinal edge to slide thereover in a first direction upon radial expansion of the expandable stent”. Par. 0047 of Shaffer discloses “The barbs 16 provide a one-way ratcheting feature such that the stent 10 can be expanded but is prevented from collapsing inwardly”. The tip 18 is placed at an acute angle with respect to the barbs 16 which allows the stent to expand with the ratcheting feature and the tip sliding along the first longitudinal edge 24/28. Once the stent has expanded, the barbs 16 engage the first longitudinal edge preventing the stent from collapsing or the first longitudinal edge from moving in the opposite direction (par. 0048). The tips 18 provide an additional interconnection between the first and second longitudinal edges, however, that occurs once the stent has expanded and not “upon radial expansion”, hence the one-way ratcheting mechanism similar to the present invention shown at Figs. 4A-4C. In Fig. 4A, the ratchet fingers 224 slide along the first longitudinal edge 220 while the stent is radially expanding, however, once the stent has expanded, the ratchet fingers 224 engage the first longitudinal edge 220 to prevent sliding in the opposite direction.
Therefore, Shaffer discloses the claimed invention of claim 1 including “a ratchet finger being configured to permit the first longitudinal edge to slide thereover in a first direction upon radial expansion of the expandable stent, and the ratchet finger being configured to engage the first longitudinal edge and inhibit relative motion between the ratchet finger and the first longitudinal edge in a second direction opposite the first direction”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Shaffer et al. (2010/0122698) “Shaffer”.
Regarding claim 1, Shaffer discloses an expandable stent 10 (Fig. 1) configured to be deployed in a body lumen (abstract), the expandable stent 10 comprising: a wall 12 (Fig. 6) comprising: an inner surface defining an inner lumen; an outer surface opposite the inner surface (Fig. 1 and par. 0050 disclose a stent lumen which has an inner surface and an opposing outer surface); a first base edge defining a first open end, the first open end coupled to the inner lumen; a second base edge defining a second open end, the second open end coupled to the inner lumen opposite the first open end (the top and bottom edges of the stent extending perpendicular to the longitudinal axis; Fig. 1); a first longitudinal edge 24/28 (Fig. 6) extending from the first open end to the second open end (outer edge portion 24 extends from the top end to the bottom end; Fig. 6); and a second longitudinal edge 22/26 extending from the first open end to the second open end (Fig. 6);
and a ratchet finger 16 (Fig. 6) coupled to the wall 12, the ratchet finger being configured to permit the first longitudinal edge to slide thereover in a first direction upon radial expansion of the expandable stent (par. 0048 discloses the inner and outer edge move parallel to one another as the stent expands allowing for the first longitudinal edge 24 to slide in a direction during expansion), and the ratchet finger being configured to engage the first longitudinal edge and inhibit relative motion between the ratchet finger and the first longitudinal edge in a second direction opposite the first direction (par. 0048 discloses the ratcheting mechanism 16 and par. 0050 discloses the ratchet finger 16 engages the outer edge portion 24 which includes the longitudinal edge 28 where the ratchet fingers 16 are capable of engaging the longitudinal edge 26 which prevents contraction of the stent by inhibiting the movement of the first longitudinal edge), the ratchet finger thereby inhibiting radial contraction of the expandable stent (par. 0050 discloses the ratchet finger 16 prevents stent from radially contracting by engaging the longitudinal edge portion 24 which includes the longitudinal edge 28).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Shaffer discloses wherein the ratchet finger 16 extends outwardly from the wall 12 (Fig. 2) and the first longitudinal edge is disposed outwardly from the inner lumen (Fig. 2 discloses the first longitudinal edge 24 is located on the outer edge of the inner lumen).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Shaffer discloses wherein the expandable stent comprises a plurality of ratchet fingers including the ratchet finger 16 (Fig. 6 discloses multiple ratchet fingers 16), each of the plurality of ratchet fingers being configured to permit the first longitudinal edge to slide thereover in the first direction upon radial expansion of the expandable stent (par. 0048 discloses the ratchet fingers allow for the inner and outer edges to move parallel to one another as the stent expands allowing for the first longitudinal edge 24 to slide in a direction during expansion), and each of the plurality of ratchet fingers being configured to engage the first longitudinal edge and inhibit relative motion between the ratchet finger and the first longitudinal edge in the second direction, the plurality of ratchet fingers thereby inhibiting radial contraction of the expandable stent (par. 0048 discloses the ratcheting mechanism 16 and par. 0050 discloses the ratchet finger 16 engages the outer edge portion 24 which includes the longitudinal edge 28 where the ratchet fingers 16 are capable of engaging the longitudinal edge 26 which prevents contraction of the stent by inhibiting the movement of the first longitudinal edge).
Regarding claims 4-6 and 13-15, Shaffer discloses wherein the inner lumen defines a longitudinal axis of the wall/tube 12, the longitudinal axis extending between the first open end and the second open end, and the plurality of ratchet fingers are offset in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis; wherein the inner lumen further defines a circumferential direction extending about the longitudinal axis, and the plurality of ratchet fingers are offset in the circumferential direction and wherein the inner lumen defines a longitudinal axis of the wall/tube 12 and a circumferential direction extending about the longitudinal axis, and the plurality of ratchet fingers are offset in the circumferential direction (par. 0049 and Fig. 4 disclose the ratchet fingers are staggered or offset from each other in the longitudinal and circumferential directions of the stent).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Shaffer discloses wherein the ratchet finger is cantilevered from the wall (the extending tips 18 of the ratchet fingers 16 allow for the ratchet fingers to be cantilevered from the wall 12).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Shaffer discloses an aperture extending through the wall 12 from the inner surface to the outer surface and disposed adjacent to the ratchet finger (Fig. 4 and abstract disclose mesh 12 which has openings or apertures adjacent the ratchet fingers 16).
Regarding claim 10, Shaffer discloses an expandable stent 10 (Fig. 1) configured to be deployed in a body lumen (abstract), the expandable stent comprising: a sheet rolled upon itself to define a tube (par. 0043 discloses the stent 10 is a rolled up cylinder), the tube comprising: a first open end; a second open end; an inner lumen coupling the first open end to the second open end (Fig. 1 discloses the top and bottom ends of the stent and par. 0050 discloses a stent lumen); a first longitudinal edge 24/28 (Fig. 6) extending from the first open end to the second open end (outer edge portion 24 extends from the top end to the bottom end; Fig. 6); and a second longitudinal edge 22/26 extending from the first open end to the second open end (Fig. 6);
and a ratchet finger 16 (Fig. 6) coupled to the tube 12 and being movable relative to the first elongated edge, the ratchet finger being configured to permit the first elongated edge to slide thereover in a first direction upon radial expansion of the stent (par. 0048 discloses the inner and outer edge move parallel to one another as the stent expands allowing for the first longitudinal edge 24 to slide in a direction during expansion), and the ratchet finger being configured to engage the first elongated edge and inhibit relative motion between the ratchet finger and the first elongated edge in a second direction opposite the first direction (par. 0048 discloses the ratcheting mechanism 16 and par. 0050 discloses the ratchet finger 16 engages the outer edge portion 24 which includes the longitudinal edge 28 where the ratchet fingers 16 are capable of engaging the longitudinal edge 26 which prevents contraction of the stent by inhibiting the movement of the first longitudinal edge), the ratchet finger thereby inhibiting radial contraction of the stent (par. 0050 discloses the ratchet finger 16 prevents stent from radially contracting by engaging the longitudinal edge portion 24 which includes the longitudinal edge 28).
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.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer et al. (2010/0122698) “Shaffer”.
Shaffer discloses the claimed invention of claim 1 including ratchet fingers 16 disposed at acute angle on the wall 12 (par. 0047 and Fig. 2). Shaffer fails to explicitly disclose wherein the ratchet finger monolithically couples to the wall. It would have been an obvious matter of engineering choice to make the ratchet finger be monolithically coupled/disposed on the wall, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the integration of a component. A change in integration or separation of components is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
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 comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASHITA SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)270-5417. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-5pm M-Th; 8am-4pm Fri. 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/YASHITA SHARMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774