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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 8th, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The claims filed on June 8th, 2026, have been entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-21 remain pending in the Application. Claims 19-21 have been added by Applicant. The claim amendments overcome the previous 112(b) rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 8th, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Qin et al. (Pub. No. 2019/0298387) does not disclose the limitation “a first loop and a plurality of second loops, each of the plurality of second loops having a respective minimum dimension less than a minimum dimension of the first loop” because the loops formed by the first cycle 860, the second cycle 870, and the third cycle 880 are all made around post 820, and would be understood to have the same minimum dimension corresponding to the diameter of 820. Applicant also asserts that the Final Rejection dated December 8th, 2025, has misinterpreted the language of the claim by substituting “maximum dimension” for “minimum dimension.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Final Rejection never used the term “maximum,” and pointed out that the first loops (870 and 880) had a greater minimum dimension in the form of their diameter than the second loops (860) because, as closed loops, 860 have a radius which stretches to the center of the post 820, while open loops 870 and 880 would have a radius which stretches from the loop to the space outside of the loop itself (See Annotated FIG. 8B below). Therefore, the smallest radius of 870 and 880 would be greater than the smallest radius of 860, satisfying the claim limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
234
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1, 6-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qin et al. (Pub. No. 2019/0298387).
Regarding claim 1, Qin et al. discloses an implant for vascular occlusion (850; FIGs. 8A-8B; [0089]), the implant comprising:
a coil (FIG. 8B: 850 is made of a coil) expandable from an elongated shape ([0082] coils formed by the mandrels of FIGS. 4A-16C can have a secondary shape which is formed after deployment, where the pre-deployment shape is shown in FIG. 3 as an elongated linear coil) to a deployed shape (FIG. 8B: 850 is shown in the deployed configuration), the coil in the elongated shape deliverable to a targeted vascular defect of a subject ([0079] the implant coil shown in FIG. 3 is delivered in the elongated shape to an aneurysm), the coil having the deployed shape in the targeted vascular defect of the subject ([0069] the coils change shape upon deployment to fit the aneurysm they are deployed within),
the coil, in the deployed shape, forming six sides ([0089] 850 is a cubic shape with six sides) collectively defining an interior portion therebetween in the absence of an external force on the coil (FIG. 8B: 850 defines an interior portion within the cube when not forced to be coiled around the delivery structure),
at least one side of the coil, in the deployed shape, comprising a first loop ([0089] open loops 870 and 880, on all six sides; FIG. 8B); and
at least one other side of the coil, in the deployed shape, comprises a plurality of second loops ([0089] closed loops 860, on three of the six sides; FIG. 8B), each of the plurality of second loops having a respective minimum dimension less than a minimum dimension of the first loop (FIG. 8B: 870 and 880 have a much greater minimum dimension extending over multiple sides than 860, which are limited to a portion of one side), wherein three of the six sides in the deployed state each include an instance of the first loop (FIG. 8B: each side of the six side have 870 and 880) and another three of the six sides in the deployed state each include a respective plurality of the second loops (FIG. 8B: three of the six sides have multiple 860).
Regarding claim 6, Qin et al. further discloses the coil in the deployed shape, in the absence of external force on the coil, transitions from a first side to an immediately adjacent second side for each of the six sides of the implant (FIGs. 3 and 8B: the deployment forces the linear coil to bend back to the default shape, which moves each side from a first position to a second position immediately adjacent to several other sides).
Regarding claim 7, Qin et al. further discloses the coil comprises a shape memory material ([0080] the strands making up the wires are shape memory materials).
Regarding claim 8, Qin et al. further discloses the shape memory material comprises a platinum tungsten alloy ([0080] the strands making up the wires can be platinum/tungsten alloys).
Regarding claim 9, Qin et al. further discloses the coil in the elongated shape is deliverable to the targeted vascular defect through an intraluminal device ([0075] the coils can be delivered by a catheter).
Regarding claim 10, Qin et al. further discloses with the coil in the deployed shape, at least two of the six sides are offset from one another by about 90 degrees ([0089] 850 is a cubic shape with six sides, where each side is offset to four other sides by 90 degrees).
Regarding claim 11, Qin et al. further discloses the deployed shape of the coil is generally cubic in the absence of external force on the coil ([0089] 850 is a cubic shape with six sides when in the deployed shape).
Regarding claim 12, Qin et al. further discloses the coil includes a first end portion and a second end portion ([0089] 850 is a cubic shape with six sides), and the first end portion and the second end portion axially contract relative to one another as the coil flexes from the elongated shape to the deployed shape (FIGs. 3 and 8B: deployment of the coil causes the proximal and distal ends to axially move closer together as the coil changes shape).
Regarding claim 13, Qin et al. further discloses the coil includes a helical winding about a longitudinal axis defined by the first end portion and the second end portion of the coil (FIG. 3: the coil has a helical winding around the deployment device, defined by a distal first end and a proximal second end).
Regarding claim 14, Qin et al. further discloses the first end portion of the coil forms a portion of the first loop (FIGs. 3 and 8B: the distal first end of the coil forms some of the coils shown in the fully deployed device form).
Regarding claim 15, Qin et al. further discloses the second end portion of the coil forms a portion of one of the plurality of second loops (FIGs. 3 and 8B: the proximal second end of the coil forms some of the coils shown in the fully deployed device form).
Regarding claim 18, Qin et al. further discloses three of the six sides each include only a respective single instance of the first loop (FIG. 8B: three of the sides have both open and closed loops, such as the one with labels 860, 870, 880, while the other three sides, such as the one with label 850, only have one open loop).
Regarding claim 19, Qin et al. discloses an implant for vascular occlusion (850; FIGs. 8A-8B; [0089]), the implant comprising:
a coil (FIG. 8B: 850 is made of a coil) expandable from an elongated shape ([0082] coils formed by the mandrels of FIGS. 4A-16C can have a secondary shape which is formed after deployment, where the pre-deployment shape is shown in FIG. 3 as an elongated linear coil) to a deployed shape (FIG. 8B: 850 is shown in the deployed configuration),
the coil in the elongated shape deliverable to a targeted vascular defect of a subject ([0079] the implant coil shown in FIG. 3 is delivered in the elongated shape to an aneurysm),
the coil, in the deployed shape, forming six sides ([0089] 850 is a cubic shape with six sides) collectively defining an interior portion therebetween in the absence of an external force on the coil (FIG. 8B: 850 defines an interior portion within the cube when not forced to be coiled around the delivery structure),
one of the six sides of the coil, in the deployed shape, comprising a closed loop ([0089] closed loops 860, on three of the six sides; FIG. 8B), and
each of the other sides of the six sides of the coil, in the deployed shape, comprising a respective open loop ([0089] open loops 870 and 880, on all six sides; FIG. 8B) having a minimum dimension less than a minimum dimension of the first loop (FIG. 8B: 870 and 880 have a much greater minimum dimension extending over multiple sides than 860, which are limited to a portion of one side).
Regarding claim 20, Qin et al. further discloses the coil includes a first end portion (FIG. 8B: the first half of the loop of 860) and a second end portion (FIG. 8B: the second half of the loop of 860), and the first end portion of the coil forms a portion of the closed loop (FIG. 8B: 860 forms the closed loop).
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) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin et al.
Regarding claim 2, Qin et al. discloses the invention as claimed in claim 1, as discussed above. Qin et al. does not explicitly disclose the minimum dimension of the first loop spans at least 70% of a width of a corresponding one of the six sides of the implant. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have the minimum dimension of the first loop span at least 70% of a width of a corresponding one of the six sides of the implant because it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device would not operate differently with the claimed ratio. Furthermore, Applicant places no criticality on the dimensions claimed, indicating that the diameter can be at least 70-80% of the width or other cross-sectional dimension of the side in which the loop is located (Present Spec [0040]).
Regarding claim 3, Qin et al. discloses the invention as claimed in claim 1, as discussed above. Qin et al. does not explicitly disclose the respective minimum dimension of each of the plurality of second loops spans less than 50% of a width of a corresponding one of the six sides of the implant. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have disclose the respective minimum dimension of each of the plurality of second loops spans less than 50% of a width of a corresponding one of the six sides of the implant because it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device would not operate differently with the claimed ratio. Furthermore, Applicant places no criticality on the dimensions claimed, indicating that the diameter can be less than 50%, 45%, 40%, 35%, 30%, 25%, 20%, etc. of the width or other cross-sectional dimension of the side in which the loop is located (Present Spec [0040]).
Regarding claim 4, Qin et al. discloses the invention as claimed in claim 1, as discussed above. Qin et al. does not explicitly disclose the respective minimum dimension of each of the plurality of second loops spans less than 40% of a width of a corresponding one of the six sides of the implant. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have disclose the respective minimum dimension of each of the plurality of second loops spans less than 50% of a width of a corresponding one of the six sides of the implant because it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device would not operate differently with the claimed ratio. Furthermore, Applicant places no criticality on the dimensions claimed, indicating that the diameter can be less than 50%, 45%, 40%, 35%, 30%, 25%, 20%, etc. of the width or other cross-sectional dimension of the side in which the loop is located (Present Spec [0040]).
Claim(s) 16-17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin et al. in view of Le et al. (Pub. No. 2018/0271533).
Regarding claims 16 and 21, Qin et al. discloses the invention as claimed in claims 1 and 20, respectively, as discussed above. Qin et al. is silent regarding a tether releasably secured to the coil.
Le et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor of occlusive aneurysm devices ([0027]), and discloses a coil (130; [0037]; FIG. 3) and a tether (132) releasably attached to the coil ([0027] 132 is tied between 134 and 136, and releases 130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted the delivery system of Qin et al. (catheter) for the delivery system of Le et al. (tether) because both delivery systems are disclosed as equivalent structures for deploying the coil, and substitution of one for the other would have resulted in the predictable result of allowing for controlled deployment of the coil to the aneurysm.
Regarding claim 17, Qin et al. further discloses the tether includes a thermoplastic elastomer ([0037] 132 may be made of thermoplastic elastomers such as Engage).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RYAN MCGINNITY whose telephone number is (571)272-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-5:30 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, 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.
/JAMES R MCGINNITY/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights