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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/09/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 46 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally elected for the following reasons: Claim 46 is directed to a device having a wire that couples the anchor portion to the wide distal end of the intravascular tapered body. This seems to be supported, as argued by the applicant, string 111’ in figure 16-18. However the application elected species C, figure 19-22, in the reply filed 03/17/2025, which does not have the “string” or “wire” to connect the anchor portion. The string/wire of figure 16-18 would be applicable Species B, figure 8-13, not the elected species C. Therefore the claim is withdrawn since it is directed to a species nonelected. Accordingly, claim 46 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues in the response filed 03/09/2026 that the claim amendments would overcome the drawing objections, and the 112a,b rejections. The objections and 112b rejections have been withdrawn. However, the 112a rejections remain. The applicant elected species C, figure 19-22 in the response filed 03/17/2025. The examiner maintains the elected species does not have an anchor portion coupled to the intravascular tapered body. There can be support for the “coupling” in other species/embodiments but not the elected species. There seems to be support of the elected species that the wide distal end of the tapered body can comprise the anchor portion, but there does not seem to be support that the anchor portion is coupled to the intravascular tapered body (let alone a collar with respect to claim 39). Therefore the 112a rejections are maintained below.
The applicant argues prior art Pipenhagen and Stopek in view of Evans, and Mueller/Wales/Callaghan have been made below do not disclose the intravascular tapered body extending from a narrow proximal end to a wide distal end. The rejections have been withdrawn. New rejection with respect to Stopek in view of Evans and Tegels/Walters/Nash have been made below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-24, 26, 27, 39-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 states “an anchor portion coupled to the intravascular tapered body”. The term “coupled” does imply there is a joining of some sort. It is to be noted that the applicant elected Species C, figures 19-22 in the reply filed 03/17/2025, It would seem the intravascular tapered body of the elected species is supported in the specification as originally filed by “inner component 50” and the anchor portion is supported by anchor feet 46 and ribs 44 of the outer component 40 in the elected species C. The specification as originally filed does not seem to support that the “anchor portion” is coupled to the wide distal end of the intravascular tapered body in the elected species. It would seem that the inner component 50 can “engage” and/or be drawn into a passageway of the “outer component 40” in order to expand the outer component as supported by at least paragraph 123 and figure 19-22. However the anchor portion does not seem to be readable on the inner component 50. Using the term “coupling” would infer some sort of “joining” but there does not seem to be support for the relative known definition of coupling i.e. a joining, and/or the scope of the “coupling/joining” as is used in the claim. The wide distal end of the intravascular tapered body may “comprise” an “anchor portion” but does not couple with an anchor portion. Therefore the limitation is considered to be new matter since the scope of the claims are unknown. See rejections below interpretations of the claim limitation.
Claim 39 states “the anchor portion is coupled to a collar” in line 4. The term “couple” does imply there is a joining of some sort. However, it would seem that the collar 42 is a part of the same structure of the anchor 44/46 as seen in figure 20. Paragraph 107 seems to disclose the outer component 40 comprises an anchor and collar on opposite ends. Further the specification does not specifically support how the anchor portion is “coupled” to the collar in the elected species. It would be unclear then if the anchor and collar as separate devices that are joined together by a mechanism, or if the anchor and collar are separate ends of a device. Since the scope of the “coupling” is unknown in the elected species, the limitation is interpreted to be new matter.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 42 states “a wire couples the anchor portion to the wide distal end of the intravascular tapered body”. However, the applicant elected Species C, Figures 19-22 in the reply filed 04/18/2025. There does not seem to be support for a wire that would couple the “anchor portion defined by a plurality of anchor feet 46” to the wide distal end of the intravascular tapered body in the elected species. It would seem that the wire may be supported by another species (figure 16-18) but not the elected species. Since the applicant elected species C, and independent claim 21 is being interpreted to be the elected species by the applicant, claim 42 is considered to be new matter since there is no support for a wire that couples the anchor portion to the wide distal end of the intravascular tapered body in the elected species.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 42 states “the anchor portion is separate from the wide distal end of the intravascular tapered body”. However, the applicant elected Species C, Figures 19-22 in the reply filed 04/18/2025. There does not seem to be support for “anchor portion defined by a plurality of anchor feet 46” is separate from the wide distal end of the intravascular tapered body in the elected embodiment. It would seem that the claim may be supported by another species (figure 16-18) but not the elected species. Since the applicant elected species C, and independent claim 21 is being interpreted to be the elected species by the applicant, claim 43 is considered to be new matter since there is no support for the anchor portion being separate from the wide distal end of the intravascular tapered body in the elected species.
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 21-24, 26-31, 35, 36, 41-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0087854 to Stopek in view of U.S. Patent Publication 5,681,334 to Evans, U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0138149 to Tegels, U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0301638 to Walters, and/or U.S. Patent 5,700,277 to Nash.
As to claim 21, Stopek discloses a device capable of being a vascular closure device (paragraph 8) comprising an anchor portion (6), the anchor portion comprising a delivery configuration (figure 2a) and a deployed configuration (figure 2b), wherein the anchor portion comprises an anchor width measured transverse to the device axis, wherein the anchor width when the anchor portion is in the deployed configuration is greater than the anchor width when the anchor portion is in the delivery configuration (paragraph 26, the plug member can expand to a larger shape which will have the greater width), wherein the anchor portion is configured for location within a blood vessel when in the deployed configuration (figure 2b), a seal ring (10), and a sealing component (8) comprising a tubular seal (paragraph 28, the elongate body 4 is positioned through the inner member, which can then allow the inner member 8 to read on a tube), wherein the tubular seal is located between the anchor portion and the seal ring when moving along the device axis (figure 1, 2a-d), and wherein the seal ring is configured to compress the tubular seal along the device axis when the anchor portion is in the deployed configuration (paragraph 28, 31, figure 2a-d) but is silent about the intravascular tapered body extending from a narrow proximal end to a wide distal end and having a device axis that extends through the intravascular tapered body, where the anchor portion is coupled to the intravascular tapered body at the wide distal end. Stopek does disclose the plug member 6 can be conical as well as other shapes and capable of undergoing change during delivery (paragraph 25,26).
If, however, it would not be known that the plug member 8 of Stopek can read on the tubular seal, Evans teaches a similar device (closure device, abstract) having a tubular seal 22 (figure 9-12, col. 7 ll. 10-23) for the purpose of using shaped mass that can be delivered to resist the passage of fluid therethrough. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a tubular seal in the device of Stopek in order for using a shaped mass that can be delivered to resist the passage of fluid therethrough.
Tegels teaches a similar device (vascular closure system, abstract) having an intravascular tapered body (242) extending from a narrow proximal end to a wide distal end (figure 6-9) and having a device axis that extends through the intravascular tapered body, and anchor coupled to the intravascular tapered body (figure 6,7, paragraph 52-53), wherein the anchor portion comprising a delivery configuration (figure 6) and a deployed configuration (figure 7), wherein the anchor portion comprises an anchor width measured transverse to the device axis, wherein the anchor width when anchor portion is in the deployed configuration is greater than the anchor width when the anchor portion is in the delivery configuration (figure 6-8), wherein the anchor portion is configured for location within a blood vessel when in the deployed configuration for the purpose of helping to anchor the device within the vessel to limit movement back through the puncture (paragraph 54). Tegels does disclose that “tapered portion” 242 can be coupled to the “anchor 240” at different positions based on where the tapered surface or pivot points engage the “anchor 240” (paragraph 53, 63-66). Walters teaches a similar device (closure device, abstract) having an anchor (32) coupled to a wide distal end of an intravascular tapered body (32a, figure 1b) for the purpose of allowing the proximal end of the intravascular tapered body to extend within the opening which will aid in occluding the opening (paragraph 69). Nash can further teach that it is known an anchor portion can be coupled to a wider distal end of a tapered portion (figure 3). Stopek does disclose the “the plug 6” of the device can be different shapes and be expandable during delivery (paragraph 25,26). Based on the teachings of Tegels/Nash, the anchor can be coupled to the wide distal end of the intravascular tapered body and yield the predictable result of allowing the device to be positioned within the blood vessel and seal the opening. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use an intravascular tapered body, with the device axis, extending from a narrow proximal surface to a wide distal end and an anchor portion coupled to the intravascular tapered body at the wide distal end, where the anchor portion has the greater width deployed configuration as the “plug component 6” of Stopek in order for helping to anchor the device within the vessel to limit movement back through the puncture while aiding in occluding the puncture.
As to claim 22, with the device of Stopek, Evans, and Tegels/Walters/Nash above, Nash further teaches a seal ring defining a cone shape (36a, figure 11) comprising an apex and a base, and a passageway (62) extending therethrough along the device axis between the apex and the base for the purpose of having a device to apply a compressive force which can also allow for a locking mechanism. Stopek does disclose the seal ring 10 can be used to engage the elongate body 4 to help lock the device. Using the seal ring of Nash can help aid in the locking mechanism. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the cone shape seal ring of Nash as the seal ring of Stopek in order for having a device to apply a compressive force which can assist in providing a locking mechanism.
As to claim 23, with the device of Stopek, Evans, and Tegels/Walters/Nash above, Stopek discloses the tubular seal comprises collagen or a collagen-like substance (paragraph 28).
As to claim 24, with the device of Stopek, Evans, and Tegels/Walters/Nash above, Evans further teaches the tubular seal comprises a delivery configuration (figure 1) and a deployed configuration (figure 14), wherein the tubular seal extends radially from the device axis beyond the seal ring when the tubular seal is in the deployed configuration (figure 14) for the purpose of helping to secure the tubular seal in place to seal the opening (col. 8 ll. 39-56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the tubular seal extend radially from the device axis beyond the seal ring when the tubular seal in the deployed configuration in order for helping to secure the tubular seal in place to seal the opening.
As to claim 26, with the device of Stopek, Evans, and Tegels/Walters/Nash above, Evans further teaches the tubular seal comprises a delivery configuration (figure 1) and a deployed configuration (figure 14), wherein the tubular seal is configured to deform from the delivery configuration to the deployed configuration for the purpose of helping to secure the tubular seal in place to seal the opening (col. 8 ll. 39-56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the tubular seal deform from the delivery configuration to the deployed configuration in order for helping to secure the tubular seal in place to seal the opening.
As to claim 27, with the device of Stopek, Evans, and Tegels/Walters/Nash above, Tegels further teaches teaches the anchor portion is configured to expand radially relative to the device axis when the intravascular tapered body advances therethrough (figure 6-7). The claim does not state how or why the anchor expands. The petals of the ancho portion can expand further as the intravascular tapered body is set within the anchor. Further Stopek does disclose the member 6 can expand during delivery (paragraph 26). Therefire the anchor can be configured to expand radially when the intravascular tapered body advanced therethrough.
As to claim 28, Stopek discloses a device capable of being a vascular closure device (paragraph 8) comprising an anchor portion (6) the anchor portion comprising a delivery configuration (paragraph 26, compressible during delivery) and a deployed configuration (paragraph 26), a seal ring (10) and a tubular seal (8, paragraph 28, the elongate body 4 is positioned through the inner member, which can then allow the inner member 8 to read on a tube) located between the anchor portion and the seal ring (figure 12), wherein the seal ring is configured to compress the tubular seal along the device axis (paragraph 28) wherein the seal ring is located closer to the anchor portion when the anchor portion is in the deployed configuration, relative to the anchor portion in the delivery configuration (figure 2a-d) but is silent about the intravascular tapered body extending from a narrow proximal end to a wide distal end, wherein a device axis extends through the intravascular body, where the anchor portion is attached to the wide distal end of intravascular tapered body, and the tubular seal expands radially away from the device when the anchor portion is in the deployed configuration.
If, however, it would not be known that the plug member 8 of Stopek can read on the tubular seal, Evans teaches a similar device (closure device, abstract) having a tubular seal 22 (figure 9-12, col. 7 ll. 10-23) for the purpose of using shaped mass that can be delivered to resist the passage of fluid therethrough. Evans further teaches that the tubular seal expands radially from a device axis when a seal ring compresses the tubular seal (figure 14) for the purpose of helping to hold the tubular seal in place. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a tubular seal in the device of Stopek in order for using a shaped mass that can be delivered and secured in place, to resist the passage of fluid therethrough.
Tegels teaches a similar device (vascular closure system, abstract) having an intravascular tapered body (242) extending from a narrow proximal end to a wide distal end (figure 6-9) and having a device axis that extends through the intravascular tapered body, and anchor attached to the intravascular tapered body (figure 6,7, paragraph 52-53), wherein the anchor portion comprising a delivery configuration (figure 6) and a deployed configuration (figure 7), wherein the anchor portion comprises an anchor width measured transverse to the device axis, wherein the anchor width when anchor portion is in the deployed configuration is greater than the anchor width when the anchor portion is in the delivery configuration (figure 6-8), wherein the anchor portion is configured for location within a blood vessel when in the deployed configuration for the purpose of helping to anchor the device within the vessel to limit movement back through the puncture (paragraph 54). Tegels does disclose that “tapered portion” 242 can be attached to the “anchor 240” at different positions based on where the tapered surface or pivot points engage the “anchor 240” (paragraph 53, 63-66). Walters teaches a similar device (closure device, abstract) having an anchor (32) attached to a wide distal end of an intravascular tapered body (32a, figure 1b) for the purpose of allowing the proximal end of the intravascular tapered body to extend within the opening which will aid in occluding the opening (paragraph 69). Nash can further teach that it is known an anchor portion can be attached to a wider distal end of a tapered portion (figure 3). Stopek does disclose the “the plug 6” of the device can be different shapes and be expandable during delivery (paragraph 25,26). Based on the teachings of Tegels/Nash, the anchor can be attached to the wide distal end of the intravascular tapered body and yield the predictable result of allowing the device to be positioned within the blood vessel and seal the opening. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use an intravascular tapered body, with the device axis, extending from a narrow proximal surface to a wide distal end and an anchor portion attached to the intravascular tapered body at the wide distal end, where the anchor portion has the greater width deployed configuration as the “plug component 6” of Stopek in order for helping to anchor the device within the vessel to limit movement back through the puncture while aiding in occluding the puncture.
As to claim 29, with the device of Stopek, Evans, and Tegels/Walters/Nash above, Nash further teaches a seal ring defining a cone shape (36a, figure 11) comprising an apex and a base, and a passageway (62) extending therethrough along the device axis between the apex and the base for the purpose of having a device to apply a compressive force which can also allow for a locking mechanism. Stopek does disclose the seal ring 10 can be used to engage the elongate body 4 to help lock the device. Using the seal ring of Nash can help aid in the locking mechanism. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the cone shape seal ring of Nash as the seal ring of Stopek in order for having a device to apply a compressive force which can assist in providing a locking mechanism.
As to claim 30, with the device of Stopek, Evans, and Tegels/Walters/Nash above, Stopek discloses the tubular seal comprises collagen or a collagen-like substance (paragraph 28).
As to claim 31, with the device Stopek, Evans, Tegels/Walters/Nash above, Evans further teaches the tubular seal extends away from the device axis beyond the seal ring when the anchor portion is in the deployed configuration (figure 14).
As to claim 35, Stopek discloses a method of implanting a vascular closure device in a vascular access site (paragraph 43), the method comprising delivering a portion of a vascular closure device defining a device axis (paragraph 25, 43) through the vascular access site, wherein the device axis extends through the vascular access site (paragraph 25, 54), the vascular closure device comprising an anchor portion (66) attached to the intravascular tapered body, the anchor portion comprising a deployed configuration (figure 2d, paragraph 26) and a delivery configuration (figure 2a, paragraph 26, as it is compressed), a seal ring (10), and a sealing component (8) comprising a tubular seal (paragraph 28, the elongate body 4 is positioned through the inner member, which can then allow the inner member 8 to read on a tube), wherein the tubular seal is located between the anchor portion and the seal ring (figure 2a) when moving along the device axis, wherein the seal ring is configured to compress the tubular seal along the device axis when the anchor portion is in the deployed configuration (paragraph 28, figure 2c-d), positioning the anchor portion (figure 2a), converting the anchor portion from the delivery configuration to the deployed configuration after positioning the anchor portion in the blood vessel (figure 2a-b, paragraph 26, the plug 6 expands once delivered), positioning the tubular seal over the vascular access site (figure 2b-d), positioning the seal ring over the intravascular tapered body after positioning the anchor portion in the blood vessel (figure 2b-d), wherein positioning the seal ring over the intravascular tapered body compresses the tubular seal to seal the blood vessel and maintain such compression (figure 2c-d, paragraph 28, 35, 43) but is silent about delivering the closure device into a blood vessel, the intravascular tapered body extending from a narrow proximal end to a wide distal end, where the anchor portion is attached to the wide distal end of the intravascular tapered body.
If, however, it would not be known that the plug member 8 of Stopek can read on the tubular seal, Evans teaches a similar device (closure device, abstract) having a tubular seal 22 (figure 9-12, col. 7 ll. 10-23) for the purpose of using shaped mass that can be delivered to resist the passage of fluid therethrough. Evans further teaches that the closure device can be delivered to treat a blood vessel (col. 2 ll. 15-24, col. 6 ll. 7-27) along with other similar punctures for the purpose of using similar methods and devices to close similar punctures. Stopek does disclose that that the device and method can be used on different types of tissue (paragraph 23) and applying the method to the vasculature to deploy the anchor into the blood vessel will yield the predictable result of sealing the access site into a blood vessel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a tubular seal in the method of Stopek which is used to treat an access site in a blood vessel in order for using a shaped mass that can be delivered and secured in place, to resist the passage of fluid in an access site of a blood vessel.
Tegels teaches a similar device and method (vascular closure, abstract) having an intravascular tapered body (242) extending from a narrow proximal end to a wide distal end (figure 6-9), and anchor attached to the intravascular tapered body (figure 6,7, paragraph 52-53), wherein the anchor portion comprising a delivery configuration (figure 6) and a deployed configuration (figure 7), and converting the anchor portion from the delivery configuration to the deployed configuration after positioning the anchor portion in the blood vessel (figure 6-8) for the purpose of helping to anchor the device within the vessel to limit movement back through the puncture (paragraph 54). Tegels does disclose that “tapered portion” 242 can be attached to the “anchor 240” at different positions based on where the tapered surface or pivot points engage the “anchor 240” (paragraph 53, 63-66). Walters teaches a similar method (closure device, abstract) having an anchor (32) attached to a wide distal end of an intravascular tapered body (32a, figure 1b) for the purpose of allowing the proximal end of the intravascular tapered body to extend within the opening which will aid in occluding the opening (paragraph 69). Nash can further teach that it is known an anchor portion can be attached to a wider distal end of a tapered portion (figure 3). Stopek does disclose the “the plug 6” of the device can be different shapes and be expandable during delivery (paragraph 25,26). Based on the teachings of Tegels/Nash, the anchor can be attached to the wide distal end of the intravascular tapered body and yield the predictable result of allowing the device to be positioned within the blood vessel and seal the opening. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use an intravascular tapered body extending from a narrow proximal surface to a wide distal end and an anchor portion attached to the intravascular tapered body at the wide distal end, where the anchor portion is converted to the deployed position after positioning the anchor in the blood vessel as the “plug component 6” in the method of Stopek in order for helping to anchor the device within the vessel to limit movement back through the puncture while aiding in occluding the puncture.
As to claim 36, with the method of Stopek, Evans, and Tegels/Walters/Nash, Stopek discloses the tubular seal comprises collagen or a collagen-like substance (paragraph 28).
As to claim 41, with the method of Stopek, Evans, and Tegels/Walters/Nash, Stopek discloses a tensioning element (4) extending through the intravascular tapered body, the seal ring, and the tubular seal (figure 2a).
As to claim 42, with the device of Stopek, Evans, and Tegels/Walters/Nash, Tegels discloses a wire (204) that coupled the anchor portion to the wide distal end of the intravascular tapered body.
As to claim 43, with the device of Stopek, Evans, and Tegels/Walters/Nash, Tegels discloses the anchor portion is separate from the wide distal end of the intravascular tapered body (figure 7).
As to claim 44, with the device of Stopek, Evans, and Tegels/Walters/Nash, Tegels discloses the anchor portion extends in a direction parallel to the device axis in the delivery configuration (figure 6), and wherein the anchor portion extends in a direction transverse to the device axis in the deployed configuration (figure 7) in which the width of the anchor portion is greater than the width of the anchor portion in the delivery configuration (figure 6,7).
As to claim 45, with the device of Stopek, Evans, and Tegels/Walters/Nash, Stopek teaches the seal ring is configured to compress the tubular seal against an outer wall of the blood vessel win the anchor portion is in the deployed configuration (figure 2d). Evans further teaches the claim limitation (figure 13-15). Nash also further provides evidence on the claim limitation (figure 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0051641 to Baxter (as cited as Reference A in the 892 page 2 filed 05/01/2025), U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0222065 to Tegels, U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0143243 to Hill, U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0276433 to Huss all are capable of disclosing, rendering obvious, and/or providing evidence on the claims of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER J ORKIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at (571)272-7134. 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.
/ALEXANDER J ORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights