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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/03/2025 has been entered. Claims 18-36 remain pending in the
application.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments filed 12/03/2025 against the rejections of claim 18 under Gilmartin and Orion are moot as these rejections have been withdrawn.
Some of the applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 against Kusleika have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, while some are moot in view of newly applied rejections. Applicant argues that Kusleika fails to disclose “twisted knit stitches,” as required by claim 18. This argument is moot in view of a new rejection of claim 18 applied over US 20080255655 A1 (hereafter --Kusleika--), in view of US 20200214858 A1 (hereafter –Gilmartin--), as having twisted knit stitches is known within the art as taught by Gilmartin and would be obvious to apply to the stent of Kusleika, as by doing so would allow the stent to be configured to match the level of tissue ingrowth desired and/or required (see paragraph [0076], as well as would enable the stent to conform to bends in a vessel without kinking (see paragraph [0078]).
Furthermore, Applicant argues that Kusleika fails to disclose “radially expanding the stent to a first radially expanded configuration inside the body lumen, and then stretching the already radially expanded stent to a second radially expanded and elongated configuration having a second length that is greater than the length in the first configuration, as recited in independent claims 26 and 33”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the reference specifically disclose in paragraph [0046] that “when implant 10 is first stretched and then expanded, representative cell 48 will first stretch from axial dimension 46 to axial dimension 47 with little or no change to length 41, and will then expand from length 41 to length 42 with little or no change to axial dimension 47” (see paragraph [0046]). The axial changes from 46 to 47 represents the radial expansion, and the length change from the length 41 to the length 42 represents the lengthening from one length to a length that is larger. Therefore, the rejections of claims 18, 26, and 33 are sustained.
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 18-20, 22-27, 29-34, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080255655 A1 (hereafter --Kusleika--), in view of US 20200214858 A1 (hereafter –Gilmartin--).
Regarding Claim 18, Kusleika discloses a method of supporting a body lumen at a stricture, comprising: delivering a stent (54) within the body lumen with a central region of the stent disposed across the stricture (see paragraph [0057] denoting that the delivery device delivers stent 54 into a body lumen); radially expanding the stent to a radially expanded configuration in the body lumen (see paragraph [0058] denoting that the balloon 59 expands the stent), wherein the stent includes a tubular member having a distal end and a proximal end and a longitudinal axis extending therebetween (see annotated distal and proximal ends and axis in Figure 5B below), the tubular member comprising a knitted filament forming a plurality of knit stitches with rungs extending circumferentially between adjacent knit stitches, wherein each knit stitch is interconnected with a longitudinally adjacent knit stitch forming a series of linked stitches (see paragraph [0041] denoting stent 10 can be knitted, braided, or woven, see also paragraph [0057] denoting that stent 54 can be identical to stent 10), the tubular member having a first length (41) and a first inner diameter (47) in the first radially expanded configuration; and after radially expanding the stent inside the body lumen, then stretching the stent within the body lumen to a second radially expanded and elongated configuration having a second length (42) (see paragraph [0046] denoting when implant 10 is first stretched and then expanded, representative cell 48 will first stretch from axial dimension 46 to axial dimension 47 with little or no change to length 41, and will then expand from length 41 to length 42 with little or no change to axial dimension 47), wherein the second length is greater than the first length (see paragraph [0046] denoting that the stent is stretched from length 41 to 42, see also paragraph [0057] denoting that the capture elements 55d and 55p have enough strength to stretch the stent 54 without mechanical failure, meaning that it would have a different length after being stretched, see also paragraph [0014] denoting that one end of the stent is connected to an outer sleeve, the other end is connected to an inner sleeve, and that movement of the two sleeves (changing positions) causes the stent to go from an initial length L1 to a modified length L2, see also paragraph [0043] denoting that L2 is the “stretched length” being 3% to 50% greater than L1).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kusleika fails to disclose wherein the stent comprises of twisted knit stitches.
Gilmartin discloses a method of supporting a body lumen at a stricture, comprising: delivering a stent (see annotated stent in Figure 6 below) within the body lumen with a central region of the stent disposed across the stricture (see paragraphs [0058]); radially expanding the stent to a radially expanded configuration in the body lumen (see paragraph [0065]), wherein the stent includes a tubular member (12) having a distal end (16) and a proximal end (14) and a longitudinal axis extending therebetween (see annotated ends and axis in Figure 6 below), the tubular member comprising a knitted filament forming a plurality of knit stitches with rungs extending circumferentially between adjacent knit stitches (see paragraph [0069]), wherein each knit stitch is interconnected with a longitudinally adjacent knit stitch forming a series of linked stitches (see paragraph [0069]), the tubular member having a first length and a first inner diameter in the radially expanded configuration (see paragraph [0070] denoting that the stent could be elongated); and thereafter, stretching the stent within the body lumen to a radially expanded and elongated configuration having a second length, wherein the second length is greater than the first length (see paragraphs [0007]). Gilmartin teaches wherein the stent comprises of twisted knit stitches (see paragraphs [0076] and [0078]).
PNG
media_image2.png
427
799
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 stent of Kusleika have twisted knit stitches, as taught by Gilmartin, as by doing so would allow the stent to be configured to match the level of tissue ingrowth desired and/or required (see paragraph [0076], as well as would enable the stent to conform to bends in a vessel without kinking (see paragraph [0078]).
Regarding Claim 19, Kusleika as modified by Gilmartin discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the stent has a second inner diameter in the second radially expanded and elongated configuration, wherein the second inner diameter is substantially the same as the first inner diameter (see paragraph [0046] denoting there is little to no change to diameter 47 when stretching from length 41 to length 42).
Regarding Claim 20, Kusleika as modified by Gilmartin discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the second length is at least 200% or more of the first length (see paragraph [0046] denoting the ratio of the cell length 42 to length 41 can be 200%).
Regarding Claim 22, Kusleika as modified by Gilmartin discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising: engaging a first capture element of a stent delivery device with the distal end of the tubular member and a second capture element of the stent delivery device with the proximal end of the tubular member (see paragraph [0057] denoting that the stent tabs 16 on proximal end 54p and distal end 54d “interlock” or in other words, hook, onto the “pockets” of capture elements 55p and 55d, respectively).
Regarding Claim 23, Kusleika as modified by Gilmartin discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the first capture element is on an inner shaft of the stent delivery device and the second capture element is on an outer sleeve of the stent delivery device (see Figure 57 below, see also paragraph [0057] denoting that 55p is attached to 52, 55d is attached to 57, and that 57 is slidable within 52, making 52 and outer sleeve and 57 an inner sleeve).
Regarding Claim 24, Kusleika as modified by Gilmartin discloses the method of claim 23, wherein the step of stretching the stent includes: moving the inner shaft relative to the outer sleeve to stretch the stent (see paragraph [0060], see also paragraph [0035] denoting that the stent is lengthened through application of tensile forces to each end, see also paragraph [0057] denoting that the capture elements 55d and 55p have enough strength to stretch the stent 54 without mechanical failure, see paragraph [0014] denoting that one end of the stent is connected to an outer sleeve, the other end is connected to an inner sleeve, and that movement of the two sleeves (changing positions) causes the stent to go from an initial length L1 to a modified length L2, see also paragraph [0043] denoting that L2 is the “stretched length” being 3% to 50% greater than L1).
Regarding Claim 25, Kusleika as modified by Gilmartin discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the first capture element is a first hook and the second capture element is a second hook (see paragraph [0057] denoting that the stent tabs 16 “interlock” or in other words, hook, onto the “pockets” of capture elements 55p and 55d).
Regarding Claim 26, Kusleika as modified by Gilmartin discloses a method of delivering and positioning an adjustable length stent in a body lumen, comprising: advancing a delivery system through a body lumen (see paragraph [0057]), the delivery system including a delivery device having an inner shaft, an outer sleeve surrounding the inner shaft (see annotated inner and outer sleeves in Figure 5C below), and a stent positioned between the inner shaft and the outer sleeve in a radially constrained configuration (see stent 54 in Figure 5A on distal portion 50d of catheter 51, in which 52 is on the outside of and 57 is within, making the stent “between” the two); deploying the stent from the delivery device to allow the stent to radially expand to a radially expanded configuration having a first length (see paragraph [0057]); after the stent radially expands to the first radially expanded configuration, then moving the inner shaft relative to the outer sleeve to stretch already expanded the stent from the first radially expanded configuration to a second radially expanded and elongated configuration in which the stent has a second length greater than the first length (see paragraph [0046] denoting when implant 10 is first stretched and then expanded, representative cell 48 will first stretch from axial dimension 46 to axial dimension 47 with little or no change to length 41, and will then expand from length 41 to length 42 with little or no change to axial dimension 47, see also paragraph [0058] denoting that the balloon 59 expands the stent, see also paragraph [0057] denoting that the capture elements 55d and 55p have enough strength to stretch the stent 54 without mechanical failure, meaning that it would have a different length after being stretched, see also paragraph [0014] denoting that one end of the stent is connected to an outer sleeve, the other end is connected to an inner sleeve, and that movement of the two sleeves (changing positions) causes the stent to go from an initial length L1 to a modified length L2, see also paragraph [0043] denoting that L2 is the “stretched length” being 3% to 50% greater than L1).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 27, Kusleika as modified by Gilmartin discloses the method of claim 26, wherein the stent has first inner diameter in the first radially expanded configuration and the stent has a second inner diameter in the second radially expanded and elongated configuration, wherein the second inner diameter is substantially the same as the first inner diameter (see paragraph [0046] denoting there is little to no change to diameter 47 when stretching from length 41 to length 42, see also paragraph [0044] denoting that the stretched circumference can be within 1% of the un-stretched circumference, which can be considered to be “substantially the same”, see also paragraph [0043] denoting that lengthening of contracted implant 10 causes little or no change in stretched circumference C2 as compared to un-stretched circumference C1).
Regarding Claim 29, Kusleika as modified by Gilmartin discloses the method of claim 26.
Kusleika as modified by Gilmartin fails to disclose wherein the first length is about 50 mm to about 60 mm and the second length is about 100 mm to about 160 mm.
However, Kusleika teaches that the first length of the stent can range from 20 to 400 mm (see paragraph [0057]), and that the second length could be 45% larger than the first range, which would make the second range 29 mm to 580 mm (see paragraph [0043]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first length is about 20 mm to about 400 mm and the second length is about 29 mm to about 580 mm, as taught by Kusleika. Doing so would enable the stent to have the percentage of vessel inner wall area that is covered by the expanded metal stent ("percent metal coverage") to fall within a pre-programmed range (see paragraph [0044]). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stent’s first length from between 20 to 400 mm and the second length from between about 29 to 580 mm to be about 50 mm to about 60 mm for the first length and about 100 mm to about 160 mm for the second length as claimed, since in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see page 13, lines 22-24 denoting the lengths may be within these ranges).
Regarding Claim 30, Kusleika as modified by Gilmartin discloses the method of claim 26, further comprising: engaging a first capture element of a stent delivery device with the distal end of the tubular member and a second capture element of the stent delivery device with the proximal end of the tubular member (see paragraph [0057] denoting that the stent tabs 16 on proximal end 54p and distal end 54d “interlock” or in other words, hook, onto the “pockets” of capture elements 55p and 55d, respectively).
Regarding Claim 31, Kusleika as modified by Gilmartin discloses the method of claim 30, wherein the first capture element is on an inner shaft of the stent delivery device and the second capture element is on an outer sleeve of the stent delivery device (see Figure 57 below, see also paragraph [0057] denoting that 55p is attached to 52, 55d is attached to 57, and that 57 is slidable within 52, making 52 and outer sleeve and 57 an inner sleeve).
Regarding Claim 32, Kusleika as modified by Gilmartin discloses the method of claim 30, wherein the first capture element is a first hook and the second capture element is a second hook (see paragraph [0057] denoting that the stent tabs 16 “interlock” or in other words, hook, onto the “pockets” of capture elements 55p and 55d).
Regarding Claim 33, Kusleika as modified by Gilmartin discloses a method of supporting a body lumen at a stricture, comprising: delivering a stent within the body lumen with a central region of the stent disposed across the stricture (see paragraph [0057] denoting that the delivery device delivers stent 54 into a body lumen); radially expanding the stent to a first radially expanded configuration in the body lumen (see paragraph [0057]), wherein the stent includes a tubular member having a distal end and a proximal end and a longitudinal axis extending therebetween (see annotated distal and proximal ends and axis in Figure 5B below), the tubular member having a first length (41) and a first inner diameter (47) in the radially expanded configuration; and after radially expanding the stent, then moving the distal end of the tubular member away from the stricture in a distal direction and/or moving the proximal end of the tubular member away from the stricture in a proximal direction to thereby stretch the already expanded stent within the body lumen to a second radially expanded and elongated configuration having a second length (42) (see paragraph [0046] denoting when implant 10 is first stretched and then expanded, representative cell 48 will first stretch from axial dimension 46 to axial dimension 47 with little or no change to length 41, and will then expand from length 41 to length 42 with little or no change to axial dimension 47), wherein the second length is greater than the first length (see paragraph [0046] denoting that the stent is stretched from length 41 to 42, see also paragraph [0058] denoting that the balloon 59 expands the stent, see also paragraph [0057] denoting that the capture elements 55d and 55p have enough strength to stretch the stent 54 without mechanical failure, meaning that it would have a different length after being stretched, see also paragraph [0014] denoting that one end of the stent is connected to an outer sleeve, the other end is connected to an inner sleeve, and that movement of the two sleeves (changing positions) causes the stent to go from an initial length L1 to a modified length L2, see also paragraph [0043] denoting that L2 is the “stretched length” being 3% to 50% greater than L1, see also paragraph [0060], see also paragraph [0035] denoting that the stent is lengthened through application of tensile forces to each end).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 34, Kusleika as modified by Gilmartin discloses the method of claim 33, wherein the stent has first inner diameter in the first radially expanded configuration and the stent has a second inner diameter in the second radially expanded and elongated configuration, wherein the second inner diameter is substantially the same as the first inner diameter (see paragraph [0046] denoting there is little to no change to diameter 47 when stretching from length 41 to length 42, see also paragraph [0044] denoting that the stretched circumference can be within 1% of the un-stretched circumference, which can be considered to be “substantially the same”, see also paragraph [0043] denoting that lengthening of contracted implant 10 causes little or no change in stretched circumference C2 as compared to un-stretched circumference C1).
Regarding Claim 36, Kusleika in view of Gilmartin discloses the method of claim 33.
Kusleika in view of Gilmartin fails to disclose wherein the first length is about 50 mm to about 60 mm and the second length is about 100 mm to about 160 mm.
However, Kusleika teaches that the first length of the stent can range from 20 to 400 mm (see paragraph [0057]), and that the second length could be 45% larger than the first range, which would make the second range 29 mm to 580 mm (see paragraph [0043]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first length be about 20 mm to about 400 mm and the second length be about 29 mm to about 580 mm, as taught by Kusleika. Doing so would enable the stent to have the percentage of vessel inner wall area that is covered by the expanded metal stent ("percent metal coverage") to fall within a pre-programmed range (see paragraph [0044]). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stent’s first length from between 20 to 400 mm and the second length range from about 29 to 580 mm to about 50 mm to about 60 mm for the first length and about 100 mm to about 160 mm for the second length as claimed, since in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see page 13, lines 22-24 denoting the lengths may be within these ranges).
Claims 21, 28, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080255655 A1 (hereafter --Kusleika--) and US 20200214858 A1 (hereafter –Gilmartin--) as applied to claims 18, 26, and 33 above, and further in view of US 20110230955 A1 (hereafter -- Orion--).
Regarding Claim 21, Kusleika in view of Gilmartin discloses the method of claim 18.
Kusleika in view of Gilmartin fails to disclose wherein the first length is about 50 mm to about 60 mm and the second length is about 100 mm to about 160 mm.
Orion discloses a method of supporting a body lumen at a stricture, comprising: delivering a stent (see annotated stent in Figure 1A below) within the body lumen with a central region of the stent disposed across the stricture (see paragraphs [0029]); radially expanding the stent to a radially expanded configuration in the body lumen (see paragraph [0125]), wherein the stent includes a tubular member having a distal end and a proximal end and a longitudinal axis extending therebetween (see annotated ends and axis in Figure 1A below), the tubular member comprising a knitted filament forming a plurality of knit stitches with rungs extending circumferentially between adjacent knit stitches (see paragraph [0066]), wherein each knit stitch is interconnected with a longitudinally adjacent knit stitch forming a series of linked stitches (see paragraph [0066]), the tubular member having a first length and a first inner diameter in the radially expanded configuration (see paragraph [0080]); and thereafter, stretching the stent within the body lumen to a radially expanded and elongated configuration having a second length, wherein the second length is greater than the first length (see paragraph [0080]). Orion teaches that the first length of the stent can range from 30 to 100 mm (see paragraph [0133]). Orion additionally teaches that the second length of the stent can range from 100-1000 mm (see paragraph [0134]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first length of in view of Gilmartin be about 30 mm to about 100 mm and the second length be about 100 mm to about 1000 mm as taught by Orion. Doing so would enable the stent before or after covering the target vessel until reaching a required length and/or a maximal allowed length (see paragraph [0126]). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the stent’s first length be between 30 to 100 mm and the second length be between 100 to 1000 mm as claimed, since in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see page 13, lines 22-24 denoting the lengths may be within these ranges).
Regarding Claim 28, Kusleika in view of Gilmartin discloses the method of claim 26, wherein the second length is 45% larger than the first length (see paragraph [0043]).
Kusleika in view of Gilmartin fails to disclose wherein the second length is at least 200% or more of the first length.
Orion discloses a method of supporting a body lumen at a stricture, comprising: delivering a stent (see annotated stent in Figure 1A below) within the body lumen with a central region of the stent disposed across the stricture (see paragraphs [0029]); radially expanding the stent to a radially expanded configuration in the body lumen (see paragraph [0125]), wherein the stent includes a tubular member having a distal end and a proximal end and a longitudinal axis extending therebetween (see annotated ends and axis in Figure 1A below), the tubular member comprising a knitted filament forming a plurality of knit stitches with rungs extending circumferentially between adjacent knit stitches (see paragraph [0066]), wherein each knit stitch is interconnected with a longitudinally adjacent knit stitch forming a series of linked stitches (see paragraph [0066]), the tubular member having a first length and a first inner diameter in the radially expanded configuration (see paragraph [0080]); and thereafter, stretching the stent within the body lumen to a radially expanded and elongated configuration having a second length, wherein the second length is greater than the first length (see paragraph [0080]). Orion teaches that the first length of the stent can range from 30 to 100 mm (see paragraph [0133]). Orion additionally teaches that the second length of the stent can range from 300-800 mm (which makes the difference range from 800% (highest end of the first length range is 100 mm, highest end of second length range is 800 mm) to 1,000% (lowest end of the first length range is 30 mm, lowest end of the second length range is 300 mm) (see paragraph [0134]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second length of Kusleika in view of Gilmartin be 800% to 1000% larger than the first length as taught by Orion, as by doing so would enable the stent to reach a required length and/or a maximal allowed length before or after covering the target vessel (see paragraph [0126]), which would allow the stent to treat target vessels of differing sizes at a larger range. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stent’s second length from between 800% to 1000% of the first length of the circumference to at least 200% or more as claimed, since in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see page 13, lines 22-24 denoting the second length can be 150% more or 175% more than the first length).
Regarding Claim 35, Kusleika in view of Gilmartin discloses the method of claim 33, wherein the second length is 45% larger than the first length (see paragraph [0043]).
Kusleika in view of Gilmartin fails to disclose wherein the second length is at least 200% or more of the first length. Orion teaches that the first length of the stent can range from 30 to 100 mm (see paragraph [0133]). Orion additionally teaches that the second length of the stent can range from 300-800 mm (which makes the difference range from 800% (highest end of the first length range is 100 mm, highest end of second length range is 800 mm) to 1,000% (lowest end of the first length range is 30 mm, lowest end of the second length range is 300 mm). (see paragraph [0134]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second length of Kusleika in view of Gilmartin be 800% to 1000% larger than the first length as taught by Orion, as by doing so would enable the stent to reach a required length and/or a maximal allowed length before or after covering the target vessel (see paragraph [0126]), which would allow the stent to treat target vessels of differing sizes at a larger range. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stent’s second length from between 800% to 1000% of the first length of the circumference to at least 200% or more as claimed, since in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see page 13, lines 22-24 denoting the second length can be 150% more or 175% more than the first length).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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
/MELANIE R TYSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774