Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/981,434

Vascular Shunt Stent and Vascular Stent

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 06, 2022
Examiner
PELLEGRINO, BRIAN E
Art Unit
3799
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
hangzhou endonom medtech Co., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
5y 0m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
358 granted / 649 resolved
-14.8% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+35.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
5y 0m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
701
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
42.7%
+2.7% vs TC avg
§102
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
§112
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 649 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the comments/arguments against new claim 20, the examiner notes that Applicant did not follow instructions on allowance of claim 14, which was to address the 112 indefinite issue of claims 1,12 along with incorporating intervening claims. Applicant only included some of the preceding claim limitations up to claim 14 to create new claim 20. Thus the new scope varied claim necessitated the new art to be applied against a broadened claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 20966180) in view of Arbefuille et al. (WO 2018/031632) and Case et al. (2007/0038291). Wang et al. shows (Fig. 7) a vascular shunt stent, comprising a main body tube and at least one branch tube 190 axially inserted into the main body tube, wherein the main body tube comprises a tubular main membrane 120, at least one of the at least one branch tube comprises a tubular branch membrane, the branch membrane is accommodated in an inner lumen of the main membrane, a first sealing film is connected to a distal end of the main membrane and a distal end of the branch membrane, the first sealing film 180 covers partially the distal end of the main membrane with a main opening being defined by an edge of the first sealing film and a distal edge of the main membrane, the first sealing film defines at least one first sub-opening 172 at a central portion thereof corresponding to the distal end of the branch membrane, the first sealing film is in sealed connection with the distal end of the branch membrane at a periphery of the first sub-opening. It can also be seen (Fig. 5b of Wang) a surface of the branch membrane is provided with at least one wave-shaped support member 132. However, Wang et al. did not disclose the first sealing film extends inclinedly relative to an axial axis of the main body tube, and a plane defined by the first sub-opening and a plane defined by the main opening are non-parallel or non-coplanar. Arbefuille et al. teach (Figs. 1A-C) that a stent body main tube include an angle between a plane defined by a first sub-opening 26 and a plane defined by the main opening is greater than 0. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an angle between a plane defined by a first sub-opening and a plane defined by the main opening is greater than 0 as taught by Arbefuille et al. with the stent body of Wang et al. such that it enables an easier pathway for insertion of a branch stent into the branch lumen or sub-opening. Please note claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and the clauses “low waves” and “high waves” use relative terms thus providing no specific height or length boundaries. It can be construed Fig. 5b of Wang shows that a wave-shaped support member is of a structure in which low waves and high waves are arranged at intervals, the wave-shaped support member comprises a high-wave support rod and a low-wave support rod. However, Wang et al. did not explicitly disclose that a proximal end of the high-wave support rod is parallel to the axial axis of the main body tube, and an included angle between a distal end of the high-wave support rod and the axial axis of the main body tube is greater than 0° and less than 90°. Case et al. teach (Fig. 1A) support structure 300 that includes wave support member 100 and to provide a proximal end of the high-wave support rod being parallel to the axial axis of the main body tube via longitudinal connecting members 310,320,330,312a-e. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate longitudinal connecting members parallel to the axis of the main body in the wave support structure as taught by Case et al. with the branch covered membrane of Wang as modified by Arbefuille in order to impart improved compression and radial support to the branch membrane via the support wave structure thereon, see paragraph 9 of Case. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-5, 9-19 are allowed. Conclusion Applicant's amendment (broadened version of claim 14, as not all intervening limitations were incorporated in the new claim 20) 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 BRIAN E PELLEGRINO whose telephone number is (571)272-4756. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00pm M-F. 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. /BRIAN E PELLEGRINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 06, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 04, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 11, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 15, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599469
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ANCHORING AND RESTRAINING GASTROINTESTINAL PROSTHESES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599480
PERCUTANEOUS MITRAL VALVE REPLACEMENT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12575952
INTRAVASCULAR INDWELLING STENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12564490
PERCUTANEOUSLY DELIVERABLE HEART VALVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12564497
ADJUSTABLE ORTHOPEDIC CONNECTIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
55%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+35.5%)
5y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 649 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month