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 .
This action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on February 18, 2026.
Claims 5, 8-10, 12, 16, and 18-20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are being examined in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 8-12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation about 0.025" to 0.027”, and the claim also recites 0.025" to 0.027” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Examiner suggest amending the claim to include language such as “an inner diameter in the range of 0.025" to 0.027.”” or “an inner diameter in the range of about 0.025".”
Claim 8 recites the broad recitation about 100 to 140 picks per inch (PPI), and the claim also recites 100 to 140 picks per inch (PPI) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Examiner suggest amending the claim to include language such as “in the range of 100 to 140 picks per inch (PPI)” or “in the range of about 100 picks per inch (PPI)”.
Claim 10 recites the broad recitation about 0.0006 to less than 0.0009”, and the claim also recites 0.0006 to 0.0009" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Examiner suggest amending the claim to include language such as “an outer diameter of 0.0006 to 0.0009"” or “an outer diameter of about 0.0006””.
Claim 18 recites the broad recitation about 100 to 140 picks per inch (PPI), and the claim also recites 100 to 140 picks per inch (PPI) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Examiner suggest amending the claim to include language such as “in the range of 100 to 140 picks per inch (PPI)” or “in the range of about 100 picks per inch (PPI)”.
Claim 20 recites the broad recitation about 0.0006 to 0.00075", and the claim also recites 0.0006 to 0.00075" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Examiner suggest amending the claim to include language such as “an outer diameter of 0.0006 to 0.00075"” or “an outer diameter of about 0.0006””.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
All remaining claims are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 6, 7, and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosiengfiao et al. (U.S. 7713259 B2, herein Gosiengfiao) in view of Boismier (U.S. 7955313 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Gosiengfiao discloses a microcatheter (Fig. 1, Col. 1 Lines 14-17) comprising:
an elongated shaft (12) having a distal end (16) and a proximal end (14), the elongated shaft including:
an outer layer formed of a polymer (outer polymeric layer 32);
an inner layer formed of a polymer (inner polymeric layer 30); and
a middle layer formed of a braid (38) having a plurality of strands (40, Fig. 2, Col. 3 Lines 46-48) made of a metal filament (Fig. 3A, Col. 4 Lines 3-5) with an outer diameter of less than 0.0009" (Col. 6 Lines 40-41), the braid achieving at least a 70% surface area coverage relative to an outer surface of the inner layer (Fig. 2, “A reinforcing structure or layer 38 formed of multiple strands 40 is disposed between the inner and outer polymeric layers 30, 32, and 36, respectively” – Col. 4 Lines 59-61, “The outer layer 32 of the proximal shaft section 18 … may extend over a length of about 40 to 100% of the total length of the catheter” – Col. 4 Lines 62-65, examiner interprets that since the reinforcing structure 38 is disposed circumferentially between the inner and outer layers in Fig. 2 and the outer layer 32 extends to 100% the length of the catheter, the reinforcing structure 38 covers greater than 70% of the outer surface area of the inner layer 30).
Gosiengfiao does not expressly disclose wherein the strands include at least four metal filaments;
and a distal polymeric tip attached to the distal end of the elongated shaft.
Boismier teaches wherein the strands include at least four metal filaments (50, Fig. 3, Col. 6 Lines 29-33);
and a distal polymeric tip attached to the distal end of the elongated shaft (Col. 2 Lines 59-62).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the braid of the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao wherein the strands include at least four metal filaments and a distal polymeric tip attached to the distal end of the elongated shaft as taught by Boismier so that the microcatheter may have better characteristics in response to torque and patient safety (Boismier, Col. 1 Lines 12-17).
Regarding Claim 4, Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier teaches the microcatheter as recited above wherein the filaments have an outer diameter of 0.00075" (Gosiengfiao, Col. 6 Lines 37-42).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier teaches the microcatheter as recited above wherein the elongated shaft provides a torque response of at least 0.9:1 (Gosiengfiao, Fig. 1).
Because modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier teaches that the structure and materials are substantially identical to those recited in the claim, the performance characteristic would be obviously optimized to the same result.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention that the elongated shaft disclosed by Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier provides a torque response of at least 0.9:1. Achieving a torque response of at least 0.9:1 would have been a predictable result of using the equivalent braid structure taught by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier teaches the a microcatheter as recited above wherein the elongated shaft provides a torque response of at least 0.95:1 (Gosiengfiao, Fig. 1).
Because modified Gosiengfiao discloses that the structure and materials are substantially identical to those recited in the claim, the performance characteristic would be obviously optimized to the same result.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention that the elongated shaft disclosed by Gosiengfiao provides a torque response of at least 0.95:1. Achieving a torque response of at least 0.95:1 would have been a predictable result of using the equivalent braid structure taught by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 10, Gosiengfiao discloses a microcatheter as recited above wherein the braid comprises 12 to 20 strands (Col. 3 Lines 45-50) and a metal filament having an outer diameter of about 0.0006 to less than 0.0009” (Col. 6 Lines 37-42)
Gosiengfiao does not expressly disclose each strand having four metal filaments.
Boismier teaches a braid having a plurality of strands including at least four filaments (50, Fig. 3, Col. 6 Lines 29-31).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the braid of the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao so that it includes a braid having a plurality of strands including at least four metal filaments as taught by Boismier so that the microcatheter braid may have better physical characteristics (Boismier, Col. 1 Lines 12-17).
Regarding Claim 11, Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier teaches the microcatheter as recited above wherein the braid has 16 strands (Gosiengfiao, Col. 3 Lines 45-50).
Regarding Claim 12, Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier teaches the microcatheter as recited above wherein the filaments have an outer diameter of about 0.00075" (Gosiengfiao, Col. 6 Lines 40-41).
Regarding Claim 13, Gosiengfiao discloses a microcatheter as recited above wherein the metal filaments are round (Col. 6 Lines 36-40).
Gosiengfiao does not expressly disclose wherein each state wherein each strand consists of four metal filaments.
Boismier teaches wherein each strand consists of four round filaments (Col. 4 Lines 66-68 through Col.5 Line 1).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the braid of the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao so that each strand consists of four round metal filaments as taught by Boismier so that the microcatheter braid may have better physical characteristics (Boismier, Col. 1 Lines 12-17).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier discloses a microcatheter as recited above wherein the elongated shaft has a burst pressure in the range of 1000 to 3000 psi (Gosiengfiao, Fig. 1).
Because modified Gosiengfiao discloses that the structure and materials are substantially identical to those recited in the claim, the performance characteristic would be obviously optimized to the same result.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention that the elongated shaft disclosed by Gosiengfiao has a burst pressure in the range of 1000 to 3000 psi. Achieving a burst pressure in the range of 1000 to 3000 psi would have been a predictable result of using the equivalent braid structure taught by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier discloses a microcatheter as recited above wherein the elongated shaft has a burst pressure greater than 1200 psi (Gosiengfiao, Fig. 1).
Because modified Gosiengfiao discloses that the structure and materials are substantially identical to those recited in the claim, the performance characteristic would be obviously optimized to the same result.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention that the elongated shaft disclosed by Gosiengfiao has a burst pressure greater than 1200 psi. Achieving a burst pressure greater than 1200 psi would have been a predictable result of using the equivalent braid structure taught by the prior art.
Claims 2, 3, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier, further in view of Hiroshige et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0214006 A1, hereafter Hiroshige).
Regarding Claim 2, Modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier teaches the microcatheter as stated above.
Modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier does not expressly disclose wherein the braid is formed in a two over, two under configuration.
Hiroshige teaches wherein the braid is formed in a two over, two under configuration (Paragraph [0028]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the braid of the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao in
view of Boismier so that the braid is formed in a two over, two under configuration as taught by
Hiroshige to tune mechanical properties such as torque response, pushing response, and pressure resistance (Hiroshige, Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding Claim 3, Modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier discloses a microcatheter as stated
above.
Modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier does not expressly disclose wherein at least one strand
comprises at least one stainless steel filament and at least one tungsten filament.
Hiroshige teaches wherein at least one strand comprises at least one stainless steel filament and
at least one tungsten filament (Paragraph [0029]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao in view of
Boismier so that at least one strand comprises at least one stainless steel filament and at least one
tungsten filament as disclosed by Hiroshige to achieve desired mechanical properties desired in microcatheters (Hiroshige, Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding Claim 16, Gosiengfiao discloses a microcatheter (Figure 1, Column 1 Lines 14-17) comprising:
an elongated shaft (12) having a distal end (16) and a proximal end (14), the elongated shaft including:
an outer layer formed of a polymer (32);
an inner layer formed of a polymer (30); and
a middle layer formed of a braid (38) having a plurality of strands (40, Col. 3 Lines 46-48) having a metal filament being a round metal (Figure 3A, Col. 4 Lines 3-5) with an outer diameter of 0.00075” or less (Col. 6 Lines 40-41), the braid achieving at least 70% surface area coverage relative to an outer surface of the inner layer (Fig. 2, “A reinforcing structure or layer 38 formed of multiple strands 40 is disposed between the inner and outer polymeric layers 30, 32, and 36, respectively” – Col. 4 Lines 59-61, “The outer layer 32 of the proximal shaft section 18 … may extend over a length of about 40 to 100% of the total length of the catheter” – Col. 4 Lines 62-65, examiner interprets that since the reinforcing structure 38 is disposed circumferentially between the inner and outer layers in Fig. 2 and the outer layer 32 extends to 100% the length of the catheter, the reinforcing structure 38 covers greater than 70% of the outer surface area of the inner layer 30);
Gosiengfiao does not expressly disclose where a plurality of strands has four filaments;
wherein the braid is formed in a two over, two under configuration; and
a distal polymeric tip attached to the distal end of the elongated shaft;
wherein the elongated shaft provides a torque response of at least 0.9:1.
Boismier teaches where a of plurality strands has four filaments each (50, Fig. 3, Col. 6 Lines
29-31); and
a distal polymeric tip attached to the distal end of the elongated shaft (Col 2. 59-62).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao to include a plurality of strands having four filaments each and a distal polymeric tip attached to the distal end of the elongated shaft so that the microcatheter may have better characteristics in response to torque and
patient safety (Boismier, Col. 1 Lines 12-17).
Hiroshige teaches wherein the braid is formed in a two over, two under configuration (Paragraph [0028]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the braid of the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao
so that the braid is formed in a two over, two under configuration as taught by Hiroshige to tune
mechanical properties such as torque response, pushing response, and pressure resistance (Hiroshige, Paragraph [0003]).
Modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier and Hiroshige discloses a microcatheter as recited
above wherein the elongated shaft provides a torque response of at least 0.9:1 (Gosiengfiao, Fig. 1).
Because modified Gosiengfiao discloses that the structure and materials are substantially identical to those recited in the claim, the performance characteristic would be obviously optimized to the same result. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of
the applicant’s claimed invention that the elongated shaft disclosed by Gosiengfiao provides a torque
response of at least 0.9:1. Achieving a torque response of at least 0.9:1 would have been a predictable
result of using the equivalent braid structure taught by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 17, Modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier and Hiroshige teaches the microcatheter as recited above.
Modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier and Hiroshige does not expressly disclose wherein at
least one strand comprises at least one stainless steel filament or at least one tungsten filament.
Hiroshige teaches wherein at least one strand comprises at least one stainless steel filament and
at least one tungsten filament (Paragraph [0029]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao so that at
least one strand comprises at least one stainless steel filament and at least one tungsten filament as
disclosed by Hiroshige to achieve desired mechanical properties desired in microcatheters (Hiroshige,
Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding Claim 20, Modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier discloses a microcatheter as
recited above wherein the braid comprises 12 to 20 strands (Col. 3 Lines 45-30) where filament have an
outer diameter of about 0.0006 to 0.00075" (Col. 6 Lines 40-41).
Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier does not expressly each strand having four metal filaments.
Boismier teaches each strand having four metal filaments (50, Fig. 3, Col. 6 Lines 29-31).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the braid of the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao
so that it includes a braid having a plurality of strands including at least four metal filaments as taught by
Boismier so that the microcatheter braid may have better physical characteristics (Boismier, Col. 1 Lines
12-17).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier, further in view of Hewitt et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0153049 A1, hereafter Hewitt).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier discloses a microcatheter as
recited above.
Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier does not expressly disclose wherein the elongated shaft has an
outer diameter of less than 3 French, and an inner diameter in the range of about 0.025" to 0.027"
Hewitt teaches wherein the elongated shaft has an outer diameter of less than 3 French, and an
inner diameter in the range of about 0.025" to 0.027" (Paragraph [0007]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao so that the
elongated shaft has an outer diameter of less than 3 French, and an inner diameter in the range of about
0.025" to 0.027" as taught by Hewitt so that the microcatheter may pass through small diameter
vessels and arteries (Hewitt, Paragraph [0009]).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosiengfiao in view
of Boismier, further in view of Keith et al. (Patent US 6,841,214 B2, hereafter Keith)
Regarding Claim 8, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier teaches a microcatheter as recited above.
Modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier does not expressly disclose wherein the braid is in the
range of about 100 to 140 picks per inch (PPI).
Keith teaches wherein the braid is in the range of about 100 to 140 picks per inch (PPI)
(Col. 2 Lines 3-5).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier so that the braid is in the range of about 100 to 140 picks per inch (PPI) as taught by Keith to achieve a desired balance between torque transmission, flexibility, and kink resistance (Keith, Col. 6 Lines 28-36).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier teaches a microcatheter as recited
above.
Modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier does not expressly disclose wherein the braid is around 120 PPI.
Keith teaches wherein the braid us around 120 PPI (Col. 2 Lines 3-5).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao in view of
Boismier so that the braid is around 120 PPI as taught by Keith to achieve a desired
balance between torque transmission, flexibility, and kink resistance (Keith, Col. 6 Lines 28-36).
Claim(s) 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier and Hiroshige, further in view of Keith.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier and Hiroshige discloses a
microcatheter as recited above.
Modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier does not expressly disclose wherein the braid is in the
range of about 100 to 140 picks per inch (PPI).
Keith teaches wherein the braid is in the range of about 100 to 140 picks per inch (PPI) (Col. 2 Lines 3-5).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao in view of
Boismier so that the braid is in the range of about 100 to 140 picks per inch (PPI) as taught by
Keith to achieve a desired balance between torque transmission, flexibility, and kink resistance (Keith,
Col. 6 Lines 28-36).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier and Hiroshige discloses a
microcatheter as recited above.
Modified Gosiengfiao in view of Boismier does not expressly disclose wherein the braid is around 120 PPI.
Keith teaches wherein the braid is around 120 PPI (Col. 2 Lines 3-5).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date
of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the microcatheter disclosed by Gosiengfiao in view of
Boismier so that the braid is around 120 PPI as taught by Keith to achieve a desired
balance between torque transmission, flexibility, and kink resistance (Keith, Col. 6 Lines 28-36).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 18, 2026 have been fully considered.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that
“Claims 9, 12, and 19 are objected to because of unclear or improper wording. Claims 9, 12, and 19 are amended to more clearly define the claimed invention. The Applicant respectfully submits that these amendments overcome the objection.”
This is persuasive and the objections to claims 9, 12, and 19 are withdrawn.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that
“Claims 5, 8-12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ) second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the Applicant regards as the invention. Claims 5, 8, 10, and 20 are amended to more clearly define the claimed invention. Claim 16 is also amended to more clearly define the claimed invention and to be consistent with amended claim 20. The Applicant respectfully submits that these amendments overcome the objection.”
This is not persuasive for the following reasons:
Claim 5 recites the broad limitation an inner diameter in the range about 0.025” to 0.027” and 0.025” to 0.027” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. “About” imparts a slight range for the numerical value 0.025, for example, about 0.025” to 0.027” can be interpreted to mean 0.024” to 0.027”, 0.026” to 0.027”, 0.021” to 0.027”, etc. rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 8, similarly recites the broad range about 100 to 140 picks per inch (PPI) and 100 to 140 picks per inch (PPI) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 10, similarly recites the broad range about 0.0006 to less than 0.0009” and 0.0006 to 0.0009” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 18, similarly recites the broad range about 100 to 140 picks per inch (PPI) and 100 to 140 picks per inch (PPI) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 20, similarly recites the broad range about 0.0006 to 0.00075” and 0.0006 to 0.00075” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The rejection recited above is maintained.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that
“Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Gosiengfiao et al. (US 7713259) in view of Boismier (US 7955313). The Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Regarding claims 1-15, claim 1 recites, among other things, a braid where the braid [achieves] at least a 70% surface area coverage relative to an outer surface of the inner layer. The Office Action indicated that Gosiengfiao discloses this feature, citing column 4, lines 62-65. We believe that the Office Action has mischaracterized the art. The cited passage indicates that the polyimide outer layer 32 (which we note does not appear to be a braid) "may extend over a length of about 40% to 100% of the total length of the catheter."
(emphasis added). Thus, contrary to what is stated in the Office Action, Gosiengfiao fails to teach or suggest a braid that achieves at least a 70% surface area coverage relative to an outer surface of the inner layer in the manner set forth in claim 1. Boismier fails to overcome the shortcomings of claim 1. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 and those claims depending therefrom are patentable over the cited art."
This is not persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding Claim 1, Examiner interprets that since the outer layer 32 in Gosiengfiao extends over a length of up to 100%, and the braided reinforcing structure 38 is disposed circumferentially between the outer and inner layers, such as in Figure 2, the braided reinforcing structure achieves at least a 70% surface coverage area relative to the outer surface of the inner layer.
Claim 16 similarly recites the limitation “a braid achieving at least a 70% surface area coverage relative to the inner layer” and is rejected with the same rational as claim 1.
The rejection of the dependent claims is maintained as recited above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Mark Golovan whose telephone number is (571)272-2119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am-5pm Friday 7:30am-4pm.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at 571-270-1744. 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.
/MARK GOLOVAN/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/CHELSEA E STINSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights