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 05/26/2026, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objection of the telescopic structure of claim 8 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of claims 6, 12, and 16 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 3-4 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026, with respect to 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Cocks et al. (US PG Pub No. US 2014/0350660) fails to disclose the feature of controlling the distance between the two stent segments, and only provides connecting means, and does not offer flexibility in controlling the distance between the two stent segments. However, it is the examiner’s position that Cocks does disclose the feature of controlling the distance between the two stent segments as claimed. Cocks discloses the segment interconnecting means (Figs. 3a-3b, connectors 331), wherein said segment interconnecting means are structured in adjusting a distance (Paragraph [0027], “a plurality of connectors connected between the first and second structures, wherein the lengths of the connectors between the first and second structures are adjustable with respect to each other”) between said two stent segments (Figs. 3a-3b, 31 and 32). Cocks also discloses the flexibility in controlling the distance between the two stent segments (Paragraph [0036], “the connectors may be one-piece or otherwise and be flexible and shaped in a manner that allows the lengths of the connectors between the first and second structures to be varied”).
Applicant further argues Eli et al. (US Patent No. 10,039,656 B2) fails to disclose the translation elongation functionality of claim 1, wherein the segment interconnecting means are structured in adjusting a distance between said two stent segments when inserted in a vessel between a first configuration, wherein said distance is minimal and a second configuration, wherein said distance is maximal, due to a translation displacement along said longitudinal stent axis of one of said two stent segments relative to the other of the two stent segments. However, it is the examiner’s position that Eli et al. discloses the translation elongation functionality of claim 1 (Figs. 1B-2, Col. 13, lines 65-67, and Col. 14, lines 1-17), wherein the segment interconnecting means (Figs. 1B-2, couplings 13a) are structured in adjusting a distance (Figs. 1B-2) between said two stent segments (A and B) when inserted in a vessel between a first configuration, wherein said distance is minimal (Fig. 1D) and a second configuration, wherein said distance is maximal (Fig. 1C), due to a translation displacement (Figs. 1B-2, Col. 13, lines 65-67, and Col. 14, lines 1-17) along said longitudinal stent axis (Fig. 1A-2, Z-axis) of one of said two stent segments (A) relative to the other of the two stent segments (B).
Applicant’s amendment to claims 3 and 4 necessitated the new grounds of rejection of claims 3 and 4 set forth below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittens (US PG Pub. No. US 2019/0328555) in view of Eli et al. (US Patent No. 10,039,656 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Wittens discloses a stent for insertion in a vessel of a human or animal body (Figs. 1-4, Stent assembly 10), said stent having a proximal end (Proximal stent segment 11), a distal end (Distal stent segment 12), and a longitudinal stent axis (Longitudinal axis 10c), and comprising at least two stent segments (13, 13’), as well as segment interconnecting means interconnecting two stent segments (Figs. 1-4, Paragraph [0010], stent interconnecting means 30 interconnecting 13 and 13’), wherein said segment interconnecting means are structured in adjusting a distance between said two stent segments (13 and 13’) when inserted in a vessel between a first configuration, wherein said distance is minimal (Figs. 1, 5A, Distance D1) and a second configuration, wherein said distance is maximal (Figs. 3, 5C, Distance D3), along said longitudinal stent axis of one of said two stent segments (13) relative to the other of the two stent segments (13’, Figs. 3-4, 5B). Wittens fails to disclose the second configuration is due to a translation displacement along said longitudinal stent axis of one of said two stent segments (13) relative to the other of the two stent segments (13’).
Eli also discloses a stent comprising at least two segments (Fig. 2, segments A and B) and a longitudinal axis (Fig. 1A-2, Z-axis). Eli teaches a configuration where a distance is maximal along the longitudinal stent axis of one of said two stent segments (A) relative to the other of the two stent segments (B) due to a translation displacement along said longitudinal stent axis (Figs. 1B-2, Col. 13, lines 65-67, and Col. 14, lines 1-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Wittens’ stent such that the second configuration is due to a translation displacement along said longitudinal stent axis of one of said two stent segments relative to the other of the two stent segments, as taught by Eli, in order to reduce the axial load and stress on the segments caused by bending or axial torsion (Col. 4, lines 63-67, Col. 5, lines 1-20).
Regarding claim 2, Wittens in view of Eli further discloses wherein, for interconnecting said at least two stent segments (Proximal stent segment 11, Distal stent segment 12), said segment interconnecting means (Paragraph [0010], stent interconnecting means 30) comprise at least one elongated filament rod (31) having two rod ends (stent interconnecting means 30 interconnecting 13 and 13’), a first rod end being connected to the first stent segment (13) and the second rod end being connected to the second stent segment (13’, Figs. 1-5C), wherein a distance between both first and second rod ends is smaller in said first configuration (Figs. 1-2, 5A; D1) than in said second configuration (Figs. 3-4, 5B; D2).
Regarding claim 3, Wittens in view of Eli further discloses wherein in said first configuration (Figs. 1-2, 5A; D1) and said second configuration (Figs. 3-4, 5B; D2) said first rod end (stent interconnecting means 30 at first stent segment 13) and said second rod end (stent interconnecting means 30 at first stent segment 13’) are radially offset with respect to each other (Paragraph [0068], Fig. 5a).
Regarding claim 4, Wittens in view of Eli further discloses wherein in said first configuration (Figs. 1-2, 5A; D1) and said second configuration (Figs. 3-4, 5B; D2) said first rod end (stent interconnecting means 30 at first stent segment 13) and said second rod end (stent interconnecting means 30 at first stent segment 13’), but fails to disclose wherein said first rod end and said second rod end are longitudinally aligned with respect to each other, seen in the direction of said longitudinal stent axis. Eli also discloses a stent comprising at least two segments (Fig. 2, segments A and B), a first rod end (proximal end of 11a), a second rod end (distal end of 11a), and a longitudinal axis (Fig. 1A-2, Z-axis). Eli teaches wherein said first rod end (proximal end of 11a) and said second rod end (distal end of 11a) are longitudinally aligned with respect to each other, seen in the direction of said longitudinal stent axis (Fig. 1B-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Wittens’ stent wherein said first rod end and said second rod end are longitudinally aligned with respect to each other, seen in the direction of said longitudinal stent axis, as taught by Eli, in order to reduce the axial load and stress on the segments caused by bending or axial torsion (Col. 4, lines 63-67, Col. 5, lines 1-20).
Regarding claim 11, Wittens in view of Eli further discloses wherein said stent comprises a proximal stent segment (Proximal stent segment 11), a distal stent segment (Distal stent segment 12) and one or more intermediate stent segments (13”) disposed between the proximal and distal stent segments (Figs. 1-4), and wherein said segment interconnecting means (stent interconnecting means 30) interconnect each of said stent segments (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 12, Wittens in view of Eli further discloses wherein, seen along said longitudinal axis of the stent, said proximal stent segment (11) has a first length (Figs. 1-4, X1), said distal stent segment (12) has a second length (Figs. 1-4, X2), and said one or more intermediate stent segments have a third length (Figs. 1-4, X3), wherein said third length is smaller than said first and second length (Paragraphs [0015 and 0047]).
Regarding claim 13, Wittens in view of Eli further discloses wherein said third length is 5-15 mm (Paragraph [0047], Figs. 1-4, X3).
Regarding claim 14, Wittens in view of Eli further discloses wherein said first length (X1) and said second length (X2) are the same (Paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 15, Wittens in view of Eli further discloses wherein said first length (X1) is longer than said second length (X2; Paragraph [0047]), wherein said first length is 30-50 mm (Paragraph [0047], Figs. 1-4, X1) and said second length is 10-30 mm (Paragraph [0047], Figs. 1-4, X2).
Regarding claim 16, Wittens in view of Eli further discloses wherein said maximal distance between said stent segments is between 1-20 mm (Paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 17, Wittens in view of Eli further discloses wherein the number of said intermediate stent segments is between 1-30 (Paragraphs [0018 and 0042]).
Claim(s) 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittens in view of Eli et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cocks et al. (US PG Pub. No. US 2014/0350660).
Regarding claim 5, Wittens in view of Eli fails to disclose wherein said at least one elongated filament rod is structured to extend in length.
Cocks also discloses a stent (prosthesis 1) comprising at least two segments (11 and 12) at least one elongated filament rod (131). Cocks teaches wherein said at least one elongated filament rod is structured to extend in length (Paragraph [0152]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Wittens’ in view of Eli wherein said at least one elongated filament rod is structured to extend in length, as taught by Cocks, in order to allow flexible compression and expansion between the at least two segments to aid the surgeon during implantation of the stent to the vessels (Paragraph [0150]).
Regarding claim 6, Wittens in view of Eli and Cocks discloses wherein said at least one elongated filament rod (131) is structured to irreversibly or reversibly extend in length (Cocks Paragraph [0152]).
Regarding claim 7, Wittens in view of Eli and Cocks discloses wherein said at least one elongated filament rod (131) is manufactured from an extendable material, the extendable material including flexible material (Cocks Paragraph [0151-0152]).
Regarding claim 8, Wittens in view of Eli and Cocks fails to disclose wherein said at least one elongated filament rod (131) has a telescopic structure.
Cocks teaches an alternate embodiment of a stent (prosthesis 5) comprising at least two segments (51 and 52) at least one elongated filament rod (531) structured to extend in length (See Figs. 5a-5b). Cocks teaches wherein said at least one elongated filament rod (531) has a telescopic structure (Paragraph [0158], Figs. 5a-5b, slidable portions 5311 and 5312).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Wittens’ in view of Eli and Cocks at least one elongated filament rod to have a telescopic structure, as further taught by Cocks, in order to sufficiently change the distance between stent segments as desired (Paragraph [0158]).
Regarding claim 9, Wittens in view of Eli and Cocks fails to disclose wherein said at least one elongated filament rod (131) has a zigzag structure.
Cocks teaches an alternate embodiment of a stent (prosthesis 4) comprising at least two segments (41 and 42) at least one elongated filament rod (431) structured to extend in length (see Figs. 4a-4b). Cocks teaches wherein said at least one elongated filament rod (431) has a zigzag structure (Paragraph [0157], Figs. 4a-4b, zigzag region 4311).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Wittens’ in view of Eli and Cocks at least one elongated filament rod to have a zigzag structure, as further taught by Cocks in order to sufficiently change the distance between stent segments as desired (Paragraph [0157]).
Regarding claim 10, Wittens in view of Eli and Cocks discloses wherein said at least one elongated filament rod (131) has a coil structure (Paragraph [0151], Fig. 1, connectors 131, curved, S-shape, thereby forming a coil structure).
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 KARI L COCHRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-5:00.
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 5712729062. 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.
/K.L.C./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/MELANIE R TYSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights