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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/28/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1 and 9 have been amended and claims 15-18 have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1-14 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 02/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frazier et al (US 20040215230 A1), herein referenced to as “Frazier” have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The applicant amended claim 1 to further recite “wherein the outer sheet is formed against the reinforcement textile so as to follow contours of the reinforcement textile, the outer sheet formed against the contours of the reinforcement textile to define outer sheet contours along the outer surface of the outer sheet that follow the contours of the reinforcement textile, the outer sheet extending”.
The applicant amended claim 9 to further recite “wherein the outer polymeric sheet is formed against the reinforcement textile so as to follow contours of the longitudinal and lateral structures, the outer sheet formed against the contours of the reinforcement textile to define outer sheet contours along the outer surface of the outer sheet that follow the contours of the longitudinal and lateral structures of the reinforcement textile, the outer sheet contours extending”.
The examiner agrees that Frazier does not explicitly disclose the amended claimed limitations.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Frazier in view of Armstrong (US 20060015171 A1).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier et al (US 20040215230 A1), herein referenced to as “Frazier” in view of Armstrong (US 20060015171 A1), herein referenced to as “Armstrong”.
Claim 1
Frazier discloses: A medical device system 300 + 304/10 (see Figs. 5-6 and 13-17, [0105] and [0107] the implant 304 can be in the form of any of those described previously) configured to occlude an opening in a heart (see [0012], implanting a device in the left atrial appendage), the medical device system 309 + 304 comprising: a delivery system 300 (see Fig. 17, [0105]) including a handle 309 (see Fig. 17, [0106]) and a catheter 302 (see Fig. 17, [0105] and [0106]); and an implant 304 (see Fig. 17, [0105]-[0108]) removably coupled (see [0105], detachable implant) to the catheter 302, the implant 10 (see Figs. 5-6, [0079]) including a framework 14 (see Figs. 5-6 and 13-16, [0070] and [0073]) and a tissue growth member 15 (see Figs. 5-6 and 13-16, [0073]-[0074]), the tissue growth member 15 including: an inner sheet 252 (see Figs. 13-16, [0075]) positioned along an inner side the inner side of 14 (see Figs. 14-15, [0075], 252 is placed onto the inner side of 14) of the framework 14 and an outer sheet 250 (see Figs. 13-16, [0075]) positioned along an outer side outer side of 14 (see Figs. 14-15, [0075], 252 is placed onto the outer side of 14) of the framework; and a reinforcement textile 254 (see Figs. 13-16, [0074]-[0075], 254 comprises a mesh, which is a reinforcement textile) positioned between the inner 252 and outer sheets 250 to define a texture 256 (see Fig. 16, [0077], the texture is defined by areas not including 14 or the struts of 254) along an outer surface (see Fig. 16, [0077], the top plain view shows the texture based on the materials, hence a view of the outer surface, furthermore shows area suitable for cellular attach and/or ingrowth) of the tissue growth member 15; wherein the outer sheet outer surface of 15 (see Fig. 16, [0077], the top plain view shows the texture based on the materials, hence a view of the outer surface of 15, furthermore shows area suitable for cellular attach and/or ingrowth) is formed against the reinforcement textile 254 so as to follow contours the lines that 254 forms (see Fig. 16, [0077]) of the reinforcement textile 254.
Frazier does not explicitly disclose: the outer sheet formed against the contours of the reinforcement textile to define outer sheet contours along the outer surface of the outer sheet that follow the contours of the reinforcement textile, the outer sheet contours extending to define recesses in the outer surface, the recesses forming the texture in the outer surface.
However, Armstrong in a similar field of invention teaches a medical device system 10 (see Fig. 2B) with a reinforcement textile 12a + 12c (see Fig. 2B, 12a and 12c are structural layers that give definition of shape to 12c, hence a reinforcement textile) and an outer sheet 12b (see Fig. 2B). Armstrong further teaches: the outer sheet 12b formed against the contours (see annotated Fig. 2B below, the contours being the peaks defined by 12b and the recessed defined by 12c) of the reinforcement textile 12a + 12c to define outer sheet contours the outer sheet 12b contours defined by 12a + 12c (see annotated Fig. 2B below) along the outer surface the outer surface of 12b (see Fig. 2B) of the outer sheet 12b that follow the contours (see annotated Fig. 2B below) of the reinforcement textile , the outer sheet 12b contours extending to define recesses (see annotated Fig. 2b below) in the outer surface the outer surface of 12b, the recesses (see annotated Fig. 2b below) forming the texture the texture of 12b (see Fig. 2B) in the outer surface the outer surface of 12b.
PNG
media_image1.png
610
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frazier to incorporate the teachings of Armstrong and teach a medical device system with the outer sheet formed against the contours of the reinforcement textile to define outer sheet contours along the outer surface of the outer sheet that follow the contours of the reinforcement textile, the outer sheet contours extending to define recesses in the outer surface, the recesses forming the texture in the outer surface. Motivation for such can be found in Armstrong as the outer sheet can allow almost immediate tissue ingrowth due to its inherent porous microstructure and thereby assist in anchoring the device (see [0018] and [0067], 12b is ePTFE) that provides a smoother, continuous outer surface to reduce the incidence of iatrogenic endothelia traumatization (see [0018]) and can cover the open interstices of the reinforcement textile (see [0016]).
Claim 2
The combination of Frazier and Armstrong teaches: The medical device system of claim 1, see 103 rejection above. Frazier further discloses: wherein the reinforcement textile 245 extends with longitudinal structures (see annotated Fig. 13 below) and lateral structures (see annotated Fig. 13 below), each one of the lateral structures (see annotated Fig. 13 below) extending transverse relative (the lateral structures, go across the longitudinal structures, hence extending transverse) to each one of the longitudinal structures (see annotated Fig. 13 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
223
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 3
The combination of Frazier and Armstrong teaches: The medical device system of claim 1, see 103 rejection above. Frazier further discloses: wherein the reinforcement textile 254 extends with longitudinal structures (see annotated Fig. 13 below claim 2) and lateral structures (see annotated Fig. 13 below claim 2), each one of the longitudinal structures (see annotated Fig. 13 below claim 2) being spaced relative (the longitudinal structures are spaced from each other) to adjacently extending ones of the longitudinal structures (see annotated Fig. 13 below claim 2), each one of the lateral structures (see annotated Fig. 13 below claim 2) being spaced relative (the lateral structures are spaced from each other) to adjacently extending ones of the lateral structures (see annotated Fig. 13 below claim 2).
Claim 4
The combination of Frazier and Armstrong teaches: The medical device system of claim 1, see 103 rejection above. Frazier further discloses: wherein the reinforcement textile 254 extends with longitudinal structures (see annotated Fig. 13 below claim 2) and lateral structures (see annotated Fig. 13 below claim 2), the longitudinal structures the longitudinal structures of 254 are shown in Fig. 14 positioned over the framework 14 (see Fig. 14, 254 is positioned over 14) to extend radially outward (see Fig. 14, [0075], 254 is aligned with the spokes of 14 in the longitudinal directions, since the frame 14 spokes travel longitudinally along the device, as seen in Figs. 5-6, the longitudinal structures of 254 also travel in the same direction, which is radially outward from a proximal hub 16) from a proximal hub 16 (see Figs. 5-6, [0070]) of the framework 14 toward a distal end 192 (see Figs. 5-6, [0080]) of the framework 14, the lateral structures (see annotated Fig. 13 below claim 2) positioned over the framework 14 (see [0075], the bonding layer 254 is positioned over the framework 14) to extend transverse relative to the longitudinal structures (see annotated Fig. 13 below claim 2).
Claim 6
The combination of Frazier and Armstrong teaches: The medical device system of claim 1, see 103 rejection above. Armstrong further teaches: wherein the recesses (see annotated Fig. 2B below claim 1) are sized and configured to promote endothelialization (see [0018], can allow for almost immediate tissue ingrowth) along the outer surface outer surface of 12b (see annotated Fig. 2B below claim 1) of the tissue growth member 12a + 12b + 12c.
Claim 7
The combination of Frazier and Armstrong teaches: The medical device system of claim 1, see 103 rejection above. Frazier further discloses: wherein the reinforcement textile 254 and the outer sheet 250 comprise a laminated structure 250 + 254 (see [0075]-[0076], the process of heating and compositing the layers of materials forms a laminated structure as known in the art), the laminated structure 250 + 254 extending with the texture 256 (see Figs. 15-16) along the outer surface outer surface of 15 (see Fig. 16) of the tissue growth member 15.
Claim 9
Frazier discloses: A medical device 304/10 (see Figs. 5-6 and 13-17, [0105] and [0107] the implant 304 can be in the form of any of those described previously) configured to be percutaneously (see [0105], percutaneous entry) delivered with a delivery system 300 (see Figs. 5-6 and 13-17, [0105] and [0107] the implant 304 can be in the form of any of those described previously) to occlude an opening in a heart (see [0012], implanting a device in the left atrial appendage), the medical device 304/10 comprising: a framework 14 (see Figs. 5-6 and 13-16, [0070] and [0073]) extending radially outward from a proximal hub 16 (see Figs. 5-6, [0070]) to a distal side 192 (see Figs. 5-6, [0080]) of the framework 14; and a tissue growth member 15 (see Figs. 5-6 and 13-16, [0073]-[0074]) attached to the framework 14, the tissue growth member 15 including an outer polymeric sheet 250 (see Figs. 13-16, [0075], for example 250 can be make of porous ePTFE which is a polymeric material), and a reinforcement textile 254 (see Figs. 13-16, [0074]-[0075], 254 comprises a mesh, which is a reinforcement textile), the reinforcement textile 254 including longitudinal structures (see annotated Fig. 13 below) and lateral structures (see annotated Fig. 13 below), the longitudinal structures (see annotated Fig. 13 below) radially spaced (see Fig. 14, [0075], 254 is aligned with the spokes of 14 in the longitudinal directions, since the frame 14 spokes travel longitudinally along the device, as seen in Figs. 5-6, the longitudinal structures of 254 also travel in the same direction, hence the spacing between the longitudinal structures is a radial spacing) from each other and each extending over (see Fig. 13, 254 is placed over 14) the framework 14 from the proximal hub 16 toward the distal side 192 of the framework 14, the lateral structures (see annotated Fig. 13 below) spaced from each other and positioned laterally (see annotated Fig. 13 below) relative to the longitudinal structures (see annotated Fig. 13 below) to each extend radially (since the lateral structures are positioned transversely to the longitudinal structures, they extend radially around a circumference of the radially extending framework 14) around a circumference of the radially extending framework, the outer polymeric sheet 250 positioned over the reinforcement textile 254 (see Fig. 14) so that the longitudinal structures (see annotated Fig. 13 below) and the lateral structures (see annotated Fig. 13 below) define a texture 256 (see Fig. 16, [0077], the texture is defined by areas not including 14 or the struts of 254) along an outer surface (see Fig. 16, [0077], the top plain view shows the texture based on the materials, hence a view of the outer surface, furthermore shows area suitable for cellular attach and/or ingrowth) of the tissue growth member 15; wherein the outer polymeric sheet outer surface of 15 (see Fig. 16, [0077], the top plain view shows the texture based on the materials, hence a view of the outer surface of 15, furthermore shows area suitable for cellular attach and/or ingrowth) is formed against the reinforcement textile 254 so as to follow contours the lines that 254 forms (see Fig. 16, [0077]) of the lateral and longitudinal structures 254 (see annotated Fig. 13 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
223
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Frazier does not explicitly disclose: the outer sheet formed against the contours of the reinforcement textile to define outer sheet contours along the outer surface of the outer sheet that follow the contours of the longitudinal and lateral structures of the reinforcement textile, the outer sheet contours extending to define recesses in the outer surface, the recesses forming the texture in the outer surface.
However, Armstrong in a similar field of invention teaches a medical device system 10 (see Fig. 2B) with a reinforcement textile 12a + 12c (see Fig. 2B, 12a and 12c are structural layers that give definition of shape to 12c, hence a reinforcement textile), an outer sheet 12b (see Fig. 2B), longitudinal structures 12a (see Fig. 2B, 12a is aligned longitudinally with the device, hence longitudinal structures) and lateral structures 12c (see Fig. 2b, 12c is perpendicular to 12a, hence lateral). Armstrong further teaches: the outer sheet 12b formed against the contours (see annotated Fig. 2B below, the contours being the peaks defined by 12b and the recessed defined by 12c) of the reinforcement textile 12a + 12c to define outer sheet contours the outer sheet 12b contours defined by 12a + 12c (see annotated Fig. 2B below) along the outer surface the outer surface of 12b (see Fig. 2B) of the outer sheet 12b that follow the contours (see annotated Fig. 2B below) of the of the longitudinal 12a and lateral structures 12c of the reinforcement textile 12a + 12c, the outer sheet 12b contours extending to define recesses (see annotated Fig. 2b below) in the outer surface the outer surface of 12b, the recesses (see annotated Fig. 2b below) forming the texture the texture of 12b (see Fig. 2B) in the outer surface the outer surface of 12b.
PNG
media_image1.png
610
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frazier to incorporate the teachings of Armstrong and teach a medical device system with the outer sheet formed against the contours of the reinforcement textile to define outer sheet contours along the outer surface of the outer sheet that follow the contours of the longitudinal and lateral structures of the reinforcement textile, the outer sheet contours extending to define recesses in the outer surface, the recesses forming the texture in the outer surface. Motivation for such can be found in Armstrong as the outer sheet can allow almost immediate tissue ingrowth due to its inherent porous microstructure and thereby assist in anchoring the device (see [0018] and [0067], 12b is ePTFE) that provides a smoother, continuous outer surface to reduce the incidence of iatrogenic endothelia traumatization (see [0018]) and can cover the open interstices of the reinforcement textile (see [0016]).
Claim 11
The combination of Frazier and Armstrong teaches: The medical device of claim 9, see 103 rejection above. Armstrong further teaches: wherein the recesses (see annotated Fig. 2B below claim 1) are sized and configured to promote endothelialization (see [0018], can allow for almost immediate tissue ingrowth) along the outer surface outer surface of 12b (see annotated Fig. 2B below claim 1) of the tissue growth member 12a + 12b + 12c.
Claim 12
The combination of Frazier and Armstrong teaches: The medical device of claim 9, see 103 rejection above. Frazier further discloses: wherein the reinforcement textile 254 and the outer polymeric sheet 250 comprise a laminated structure 250 + 254 (see [0075]-[0076], the process of heating and compositing the layers of materials forms a laminated structure as known in the art), the laminated structure 250 + 254 extending with the texture 256 (see Figs. 15-16) along the outer surface outer surface of 15 (see Fig. 16) of the tissue growth member 15.
Claim 13
The combination of Frazier and Armstrong teaches: The medical device of claim 9, see 103 rejection above. Frazier further discloses: wherein the tissue growth member 15 comprises an inner polymeric sheet 252 (see Figs. 13-16, [0075], for example 252 can be make of porous ePTFE which is a polymeric material), the inner polymeric sheet 252 positioned along an inner side the inner side of 14 (see Figs. 14-15, [0075], 252 is placed onto the inner side of 14) of the framework 14.
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier in view Armstrong as applied to claim 1 and claim 9 respectively above, and further in view of of Burke et al (US 20050033409 A1), herein referenced to as “Burke”.
Claim 5
The combination of Frazier and Armstrong teaches: The medical device system of claim 1, see 103 rejection above. Frazier further discloses: wherein the reinforcement textile 254 extends with longitudinal structures (see annotated Fig. 13 below claim 2) and lateral structures (see annotated Fig. 13 below claim 2).
The combination of Frazier and Armstrong does not explicitly teach: each one of the longitudinal structures extending over and under different ones of the lateral structures, each one of the lateral structures extending over and under different ones of the longitudinal structures.
However, Burke in a similar field of invention teaches an aneurysm treatment/occlusion device (see Figs. 5b and 5c) with a reinforcement material 27 (see Figs. 5b-5c) and longitudinal structures longitudinal ones of 24 (see Figs. 5b-5c) and lateral structures lateral ones of 24 (see Figs. 5b-5c). Burke further teaches: each one of the longitudinal structures longitudinal ones of 24 (see Figs. 5b-5c, the longitudinal structures are interwoven with the lateral structures in an over-under pattern that is typical of meshes , see also [0073]) extending over and under different ones of the lateral structures lateral ones of 24 (see Figs. 5b-5c), each one of the lateral structures lateral ones of 24 (see Figs. 5b-5c) extending over and under different ones of the longitudinal structures longitudinal ones of 24 (see Figs. 5b-5c).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frazier to incorporate the teachings of Burke and teach a medical device system with the reinforcement textile having each one of the longitudinal structures extending over and under different ones of the lateral structures, each one of the lateral structures extending over and under different ones of the longitudinal structures. Motivation for such can be found in Burke as these interlocking members form a structure that is structurally capable of supporting vascular tissue (see [0013] and [0082]).
Claim 10
The combination of Frazier and Armstrong teaches: The medical device of claim 9, see 103 rejection above.
The combination of Frazier and Armstrong does not explicitly teach: wherein each one of the longitudinal structures extend over and under different ones of the lateral structures, and wherein each one of the lateral structures extend over and under different ones of the longitudinal structures.
However, Burke in a similar field of invention teaches an aneurysm treatment/occlusion device (see Figs. 5b and 5c) with a reinforcement material 27 (see Figs. 5b-5c) and longitudinal structures longitudinal ones of 24 (see Figs. 5b-5c) and lateral structures lateral ones of 24 (see Figs. 5b-5c). Burke further teaches: wherein each one of the longitudinal structures longitudinal ones of 24 (see Figs. 5b-5c, the longitudinal structures are interwoven with the lateral structures in an over-under pattern that is typical of meshes , see also [0073]) extend over and under different ones of the lateral structures lateral ones of 24 (see Figs. 5b-5c), and wherein each one of the lateral structures lateral ones of 24 (see Figs. 5b-5c) extend over and under different ones of the longitudinal structures longitudinal ones of 24 (see Figs. 5b-5c).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frazier to incorporate the teachings of Burke and teach a medical device system with the reinforcement textile having each one of the longitudinal structures extend over and under different ones of the lateral structures, and wherein each one of the lateral structures extend over and under different ones of the longitudinal structures. Motivation for such can be found in Burke as these interlocking members form a structure that is structurally capable of supporting vascular tissue (see [0013] and [0082]).
Claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier in view of Armstrong as applied to claim 1 and claim 9 respectively above, in further view of Quick et al (US 20140005714 A1), herein referenced to as “Quick”.
Claim 8
The combination of Frazier and Armstrong teaches: The medical device system of claim 1, see 103 rejection above.
The combination of Frazier and Armstrong does not explicitly teach: wherein the tissue growth member comprises an intermediate sheet, the intermediate sheet positioned along the outer side of the framework and below the reinforcement textile.
However, Quick in a similar field of invention teaches an implant for the LAA (see Fig. 5M) with a framework 90 (see Fig. 5M, [0064], meets the interpretation of a framework as a structural braid is the scaffold or structure that defines the shape of the rest of the device), a tissue growth member 86 + 88 (see Fig. 5M) a reinforcement textile 86 (see Fig. 5M, [0064], meets the definition of a reinforcement textile as it is a braided/woven structure, see [0095]). Quick further teaches: wherein the tissue growth member 86 + 88 comprises an intermediate sheet 88 (see Fig. 5M, [0064], meets the definition of an intermediate sheet being between 86 and 90), the intermediate sheet 86 positioned along the outer side outer side of 90 of the framework 88 and below the reinforcement textile 86.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frazier to incorporate the teachings of Quick and teach a medical device system wherein the tissue growth member comprises an intermediate sheet, the intermediate sheet positioned along the outer side of the framework and below the reinforcement textile. Motivation for such can be found in Quick as this allows for a greater variety of pore sizes that allow to meet mixed factors that are determined by pore size including sufficient radial stiffness for stability, limited pore size for rapid promotion of hemostasis leading to occlusion, and a collapsed profile which is small enough to allow insertion through an inner lumen of a vascular catheter (see [0095]).
Claim 14
The combination of Frazier and Armstrong teaches: The medical device of claim 9, see 103 rejection above. Frazier further discloses: wherein the tissue growth member 15 comprises an inner polymeric sheet 252 (see Figs. 13-16, [0075], for example 252 can be make of porous ePTFE which is a polymeric material).
The combination of Frazier and Armstrong does not explicitly teach: wherein the tissue growth member comprises an intermediate polymeric sheet, the intermediate polymeric sheet and the outer polymeric sheet positioned along opposite sides of the reinforcement textile.
However, Quick in a similar field of invention teaches an implant for the LAA (see Fig. 5M) with a framework 90 (see Fig. 5M, [0064], meets the interpretation of a framework as a structural braid is the scaffold or structure that defines the shape of the rest of the device), a tissue growth member 86 + 88 (see Fig. 5M) a reinforcement textile 86 (see Fig. 5M, [0064], meets the definition of a reinforcement textile as it is a braided/woven structure, see [0095]). Quick further teaches: wherein the tissue growth member 86 + 88 comprises an intermediate polymeric sheet 88 (see Fig. 5M, [0064], meets the definition of an intermediate sheet being between 86 and 90, see [0086], the lattice can be made of a polymer), the intermediate sheet 86 positioned along the outer side outer side of 90 of the framework 88 and below the reinforcement textile 86.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frazier to incorporate the teachings of Quick and teach a medical device system wherein the tissue growth member comprises an intermediate sheet, the intermediate sheet positioned along the outer side of the framework and below the reinforcement textile. Motivation for such can be found in Quick as this allows for a greater variety of pore sizes that allow to meet mixed factors that are determined by pore size including sufficient radial stiffness for stability, limited pore size for rapid promotion of hemostasis leading to occlusion, and a collapsed profile which is small enough to allow insertion through an inner lumen of a vascular catheter (see [0095]).
The combination of Frazier and Quick further teaches: the intermediate polymeric sheet and the outer polymeric sheet positioned along opposite sides of the reinforcement textile (Frazier as modified with Quick places the intermediate polymeric sheet underneath the reinforcement textile, while the outer polymeric sheet remains above the reinforcement textile, hence they are on opposite sides).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAIHAN R KHANDKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6174. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 PM - 3:00 PM.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
RAIHAN R. KHANDKER
Examiner
Art Unit 3771
/RAIHAN R KHANDKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights