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 .
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/04/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2001340366A (366 from now on).
Regarding claim 1, 12, and 13, 366’ discloses a woven graft comprising a primary portion (main pipe A) having a primary lumen disposed therein, a secondary portion (branch pipe B) branching off the primary portion. The secondary portion having a secondary lumen disposed therein in fluid communication with the primary lumen and extending from the primary portion at a branching angle between 75 degrees to 105 degrees (see Figure 1) and a first transitional portion connecting the primary portion to the secondary portion (see below for explanation). The first transitional portion having a first aperture through which the secondary lumen fluidly communicates with the primary lumen (See Figure 1). Wherein the primary portion has a first weave pattern and the secondary portion has at least a second weave pattern (spec discloses that both portions are made of a weave pattern, also page 3, lines 21-39 of English translation discloses the portions with different shapes, thickness, etc…). The first transitional portion is free of punctures, cuts, and bursts and a transition from the primary portion to the secondary portion through the first transitional portion is free of stitched seams (see page 3, lines 6 and 7 of English translation).
NOTE: there is an inherent transition between the main portion to the branch portion, since, the connection is seamless.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, the first weave pattern is distinct from the second weave pattern, since, page 3, lines 25 and 26 discloses that the branch portion B can have a tapered configuration.
Regarding claims 5 and 8-9, see Figure 3 disclosing the tertiary portion having a second transitional portion and the connection between the primary portion and the tertiary portion is also seamless, therefore, it follows the same structural limitations of the secondary lumen and the transitional portion.
Regarding claim 6, the first weave pattern is distinct from the third weave pattern (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, see Fig. 3 disclosing the tertiary portion offset from the secondary portion.
Regarding claim 11, see Figure 4 disclosing the quaternary portion having a third transitional portion and the connection between the primary portion and the quaternary portion is also seamless, therefore, it follows the same structural limitations of the secondary lumen and the transitional portion.
Regarding claim 18, 366’ does not explicitly say that the primary portion and the secondary portion composed of different warp yarns, however, the Examiner believes that in different embodiments it does because as mentioned in the specification (English translation), the branches can have various shapes, thickness and lengths, therefore, if the branch has a taper configuration, then, the secondary portion will have different warp yarns compare the primary portion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2001340366A (366 from now on).
366’ discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, 366’ does not disclose a resorbable material (claim 17) and is silent regarding the third weave pattern being distinct from the second weave pattern.
Regarding claim 7, as disclosed in page 3, lines 25-26 and 34-35 the reference talks about the method of making the implant by getting information from the database of a computer related to artificial blood vessels of different types sizes and also discloses the option of having the branch pipes being made of different shapes, such as, a taper shape, etc.. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to also make the third weave pattern distinct from the second weave pattern in order to accommodate the different sizes of the branches extending from the main portion.
Regarding claim 17, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the material of the 366’ reference because Applicant has not disclosed that by having a resorbable material provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the polyester material because it would perform equally as well.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the 366’ reference to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 19-21 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN J STEWART whose telephone number is (571)272-4760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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.
/ALVIN J STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 8/26/26
Prosecution Insights