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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. This action is responsive to the amendments filed 2/12/2026. Claim 15 has been amended. Claim 24 was canceled. No claims were newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response with respect to the art rejections for claims 15-21 and 25-30 have been considered. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the prior art rejection, but present indefiniteness issues (see 112b rejection below).
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 15-21 and 25-30 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 15 recites the limitation "the polymer" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “consisting of at least one biocompatible and bioresorbable electrical conductor strand in the form of a single wire or of a multifilament formed from a plurality of wires, wherein…”. The claim “consists” of an electrical conductor strand, but then adds additional elements. “Consisting” is a transitional phrase that is close ended and therefore additional elements cannot be added to the element preceding the transitional phrase. Therefore, the addition of elements to the electrically conductive connection element and the use of “at least one” is improper. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will consider the transitional phrase consistent with “comprising”.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
10. Claims 16-21 and 25-30 are rejected at least because they depend from a claim(s) which is indefinite.
Examiner’s Note on Claimed Subject Matter
11. Claims 15-21 and 25-30 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112b (see 35 U.S.C. 112b section above). The applicant is advised that no prior art was found teaching individually, or suggesting in combination claims 15-21 and 25-30. Therefore, no art rejections have been made of claims 15-21 and 25-30. The closest prior art that are made of record are Yu et al. (European Publication No.: EP3560549 A1) and Roth et al. (US Pub.: 2019/0117827 A1). In particular, Yu is directed towards a cardiac pacing current wire. Roth is directed towards pharmaceutical agents used in coatings for medical devices. However, the prior art taken alone or in combination does not teach or disclose “wherein the polymer B is degraded over a longer time period than the polymer A or has a delayed start of the degradation in comparison with polymer A, wherein the at least one electrical conductor strand is wound around a central core formed from polymer A and the first inner layer is formed on the surface of the core of polymer A provided with the electrical conductor strand and the first inner layer is in turn surrounded by an outer layer of polymer B” when taken in the context of the independent claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL TEHRANI whose telephone number is (571)270-0697. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights