DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 09/26/2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 2-4, 13-14, and 19 have been amended and claim 1 has been cancelled. Thus, claims 2-23 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 09/26/2025 with respect to the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson et al (US 20160022270 A1), herein referenced to as “Watson” in view of Carman et al (US 20140249620 A1), herein referenced to as “Carman” and further in reference to Ginn et al (US 20050267528 A1) herein referenced to as “Ginn” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has amended claim 1 to further recite “wherein the thin film mesh component is configured to transition between a compressed first configuration for delivery and an expanded second configuration when deployed in the aneurysm, wherein in the first configuration, the thin film mesh component is wrapped around the support structure with overlapping portions”.
The applicant argues that element 30 of Ginn does not correspond to a mesh component, but a hydrogel foam pad, and hence is not configured to expand the same way as the components of Watson, hence one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found motivation to combine Watson and Carman with Ginn.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the Office Action mailed 06/02/2025, the element 30, which is part of sealing member/restraining member includes a mesh (see [0021], nickel-titanium alloys + mesh), hence the device of Ginn would have a shape-memory material similar to that of Watson. As such the devices are compatible for combination.
The applicant additionally argues that Ginn’s expansion member is configured to maintain its rolled configuration within a surrounding sealing member that its motivation would not be applicable to Watson as the “component may unwrap to a more planar orientation”. The examiner respectfully disagrees, as the “component may unwrap to a more planar orientation” refers an embodiment of Watson not relied upon, namely Figs. 4A-4B, where it shows the components unwrapping to a planar orientation, not Figs. 6A-6B which are relied upon.
The applicant additionally argues that since Watson discloses that the component is wrapped around a portion of a device from 90 or less up to nearly 360 that one or ordinary skill in the art would not have overlapping portions. This teaching of Watson does not teach against having overlapping portions, as it does not specifically disclose against having overlapping portions. Furthermore, the component could be wrapped around 360 degrees and still have overlapping portions, these are not mutually exclusive characteristics, as the degree of extension is in regards to coverage.
As such the rejection will be maintained.
The applicant makes similar amendments and arguments in regards to claims 13 and 19. The rejections will be maintained for the reasons as above.
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 2-15, 18-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson et al (US 20160022270 A1), herein referenced to as “Watson” in view of Carman et al (US 20140249620 A1), herein referenced to as “Carman” and Ginn et al (US 20050267528 A1) herein referenced to as “Ginn”.
Claim 2
Watson discloses: An implantable occlusion device 100 (see Figs. 6A-6B, [0025]) for filling an aneurysm an aneurysm (see [0046]), the occlusion device 100 comprising: an elongate support structure 120 (see Figs. 6A-6B, [0064]); and a thin film mesh component 110 (see Figs. 6A-6B, [0064]-[0065], the expandable components 110 may be formed of thin-film materials), the mesh component 110 comprising a first end portion the apex of the cones 110 (see Fig. 6B) and a second end portion the flared free end of the cones 110 (see Fig. 6B), the first end portion the apex of the cones 110 being attached to the support structure 120 (see Fig. 6B) and the second end portion the flared free end of the cones 110 (see Fig. 6B) being a free end the flared ends of the cones 110 are free, the mesh component 110 extending from the support structure 120 (see Figs. 6A-6B), wherein the thin-film mesh component 110 is configured to transition between a first configuration (see Fig. 6A, flattened) and a second configuration (see Fig. 6B, expanded) when deployed in the aneurysm (see [0026] and [0064]).
Watson does not explicitly disclose: the thin film mesh component comprising arrays of circular rings, each ring having no preferred axis and configured to deform in any direction, wherein in the first configuration, the thin film mesh component is wrapped around the support structure with overlapping portions.
However, Carman in a similar field of invention teaches an implantable occlusion device 70 (see Fig. 4A, [0062] and [0066]) for occluding an aneurysm (see [0062]) that comprises a thin film mesh component 70 (see Fig. 4A, [0066], thin-film sheet with circular fenestrations, hence a mesh made from nitinol, see also [0112], thin film meshwork). Carman further teaches: the thin film mesh component 70 comprising arrays of circular rings 72 (see Fig. 4A, [0066], arrays of circular ring holes 72), each ring 72 having no preferred axis (see [0066], 72 is referred to as circular, and a circle has no preferred axis, which is contrasted to the elliptical hole shown in Fig. 4C) and configured to deform in any direction (see [0059], the thin film is hyper-elastic, therefore it can deform in any direction without permanent deformation).
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 the thin film mesh component of Watson to incorporate the teachings of Carman and have the thin film mesh component comprising arrays of circular rings, each ring having no preferred axis and configured to deform in any direction. Motivation for such can be found in Carman as this structure allows for elongate greater than 100% without permanent deformation of the material, making it advantageous for attaching film to a self-expanding device (see [0059]).
The combination of Watson and Carman does not explicitly teach: wherein in the first configuration, the thin film mesh component is wrapped around the support structure with overlapping portions.
However, Ginn in a similar field of invention teaches an occlusion device 20 (see Figs. 5A-5G) with a support structure 24 and a mesh component 30 + 22a/b (see [0021], can be made of mesh, also [0020], hydrogel/collagen, which are mesh-like as well). Ginn further teaches: wherein in the first configuration (compressed configuration (see Figs. 5E and 5F), the mesh component 30 is wrapped around the support structure 20 with overlapping portions (see Figs. 5D-5E, [0074] rolled sheet, hence wrapped around with overlapping portions).
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 the combination Watson and Carman to incorporate the teachings of Ginn and have the thin film mesh component in the first configuration be wrapped around the support structure with overlapping portions. Motivation for such can be found in Ginn as this further compresses the mesh component in the first component to have a final device with a greater relative expansion (see [0074]-[0075]).
Claim 3
The combination of Watson, Carman, and Ginn teaches: the occlusion device of claim 2, see 103 rejection above. Watson, Carman, and Ginn does not explicitly teach: wherein an opening of each ring has a diameter between 100-1000 microns.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Watson and Carman to have wherein an opening of each ring has a diameter between 100-1000 microns since 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 of Watson and Carman would not operate differently with wherein an opening of each ring has a diameter between 100-1000 micron. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, as the applicant’s patent application publication notes that other porosity such as 50 microns to about 1500 microns is applicable, hence the range of 100-1000 microns is not critical (see [0063]).
Claim 4
The combination of Watson, Carman, and Ginn teaches: the occlusion device of claim 3, see 103 rejection above. Watson, Carman, and Ginn does not explicitly teach: wherein the arrays of circular rings are closely packed such that a width between the openings of each ring and each of its surrounding rings is between 2-40 microns.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Watson and Carman to have wherein the arrays of circular rings are closely packed such that a width between the openings of each ring and each of its surrounding rings is between 2-40 microns since 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 of Watson and Carman would not operate differently with wherein the arrays of circular rings are closely packed such that a width between the openings of each ring and each of its surrounding rings is between 2-40 microns. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, as the applicant’s patent application publication notes that other widths such as 1 micron to about 100 microns is applicable, hence the range of 2-40 microns is not critical (see [0064]).
Claim 5
The combination of Watson, Carman, and Ginn teaches: the occlusion device of claim 3, see 103 rejection above. Watson further discloses: wherein the second configuration (see Fig. 6B, [0064]) forms a three-dimensional configuration (see [0064], a fan-like manner is a three-dimensional configuration, see also Fig. 3 and [0056] as the inventor’s definition of fan-like manner).
Claim 6
The combination of Watson, Carman, and Ginn teaches: the occlusion device of claim 2, see 103 rejection above. The combination of Watson and Carman further teaches: wherein each ring (each ring/circle of the mesh, see Fig. 4A of Carman) in the thin-film mesh component 110 (Watson combined with Carman teaches the thin-film mesh component has rings) is configured to connect to surrounding rings (see Fig. 4A).
Claim 7
The combination of Watson, Carman, and Ginn teaches: the occlusion device of claim 2, see 103 rejection above. Watson further discloses: further comprising a plurality of thin-film mesh components 110 (see Figs. 6A-6B, there are multiple 110) attached to the support structure 120.
Claim 8
The combination of Watson, Carman, and Ginn teaches: the occlusion device of claim 2, see 103 rejection above. Watson further discloses: wherein the support structure 120 comprises a coiled wire (see Figs. 6A-6B, 120 is a coiled wire).
Claim 9
The combination of Watson, Carman, and Ginn teaches: the occlusion device of claim 2, see 103 rejection above. The combination of Watson and Carman does not explicitly teach: wherein the support structure comprises a straight wire.
However, Ginn in a similar field of invention teaches an occlusion device 20 (see Figs. 5A-5G) with a support structure 24 and a mesh component 30 + 22a/b (see [0021], can be made of mesh, also [0020], hydrogel/collagen, which are mesh-like as well). Ginn further teaches: wherein the support structure 24 comprises a straight wire 24 is a tether hence a straight wire (see [0072]).
The substitution for one known element (the coiled support structure as shown in Watson) for another (the straight wire support structure as shown in Ginn) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the substitution of a straight wire shown in Ginn would have yielded predictable results, namely, allowing the mesh components to have larger expansion to fill an aneurysm and seal against the neck of the aneurysm with an easier to control final positioning of the overall device. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 10
The combination of Watson, Carman, and Ginn teaches: the occlusion device of claim 2, see 103 rejection above. Watson further discloses: wherein the thin film mesh component 110 is attached to the support structure 120 by adhesive, welding, or soldering (see [0053], adhesives, solders, or spot welds).
Claim 11
The combination of Watson, Carman, and Ginn teaches: the occlusion device of claim 2, see 103 rejection above. Watson further discloses: wherein the thin film mesh component 110 is a monolithic sheet (see Figs. 6A-6B, the components are single sheets).
Claim 12
The combination of Watson, Carman, and Ginn teaches: the occlusion device of claim 2, see 103 rejection above. Carman further teaches: wherein diameters the diameters of each ring of the arrays of rings (see Fig. 4A) are substantially the same before any deformation (see Fig. 4A, the diameters are substantially the same, [0066], they are all 5-micron circular holes).
Claim 13
Watson discloses: An implantable occlusion device 100 (see Figs. 6A-6B, [0025]) for filling an aneurysm an aneurysm (see [0046]), the occlusion device 100 comprising: a support structure 120 (see Figs. 6A-6B, [0064]) comprising a proximal end proximal end of 120 and a distal end distal end of 120; and a plurality of thin film mesh components 110 (see Figs. 6A-6B, [0064]-[0065], the expandable components 110 may be formed of thin-film materials) longitudinally spaced along the support structure 120 (see Figs. 6A-6B, 110 are longitudinal spaced from each other along 120), the mesh component 110 being configured to transition between a first configuration (see Fig. 6A) and a second configuration (see Fig. 6B).
Watson does not explicitly disclose: each mesh component comprising arrays of circular rings, each ring having no preferred axis and configured to deform in any direction, wherein in the first configuration, the thin film mesh component is wrapped around the support structure with overlapping portions.
However, Carman in a similar field of invention teaches an implantable occlusion device 70 (see Fig. 4A, [0062] and [0066]) for occluding an aneurysm (see [0062]) that comprises a mesh component 70 (see Fig. 4A, [0066], thin-film sheet with circular fenestrations, hence a mesh made from nitinol, see also [0112], thin film meshwork). Carman further teaches: the mesh component 70 comprising arrays of circular rings 72 (see Fig. 4A, [0066], arrays of circular ring holes 72), each ring 72 having no preferred axis (see [0066], 72 is referred to as circular, and a circle has no preferred axis, which is contrasted to the elliptical hole shown in Fig. 4C) and configured to deform in any direction (see [0059], the thin film is hyper-elastic, therefore it can deform in any direction without permanent deformation).
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 the mesh component of Watson to incorporate the teachings of Carman and have the mesh component comprising arrays of circular rings, each ring having no preferred axis and configured to deform in any direction. Motivation for such can be found in Carman as this structure allows for elongate greater than 100% without permanent deformation of the material, making it advantageous for attaching film to a self-expanding device (see [0059]).
The combination of Watson and Carman does not explicitly teach: wherein in the first configuration, the thin film mesh component is wrapped around the support structure with overlapping portions.
However, Ginn in a similar field of invention teaches an occlusion device 20 (see Figs. 5A-5G) with a support structure 24 and a mesh component 30 + 22a/b (see [0021], can be made of mesh, also [0020], hydrogel/collagen, which are mesh-like as well). Ginn further teaches: wherein in the first configuration (compressed configuration (see Figs. 5E and 5F), the mesh component 30 is wrapped around the support structure 20 with overlapping portions (see Figs. 5D-5E, [0074] rolled sheet, hence wrapped around with overlapping portions).
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 the combination Watson and Carman to incorporate the teachings of Ginn and have the thin film mesh component in the first configuration be wrapped around the support structure with overlapping portions. Motivation for such can be found in Ginn as this further compresses the mesh component in the first component to have a final device with a greater relative expansion (see [0074]-[0075]).
Claim 14
The combination of Watson, Carman, and Ginn teaches: the occlusion device of claim 13, see 103 rejection above. The combination of Watson and Ginn further teaches: wherein in the second configuration (see Fig. 6B of Watson), each thin film component 110 is at least partially unwrapped from the first configuration (the combination of Watson and Ginn has 110 at least partially wrapped around the support structure, as this would expand, this would cause unwrapped as it would not be as tightly coiled around the support structure, as in Fig. 6B of Watson and Fig. 5G of Watson).
Claim 15
The combination of Watson, Carman, and Gin teaches: the occlusion device of claim 13, see 103 rejection above. Watson further discloses: wherein in the second configuration (see Fig. 6B), each thin film mesh component 110 comprises a three-dimensional configuration (see Fig. 6B, [0047] and [0064]) that occupies a volume (see [0047] and [0064]).
Claim 18
The combination of Watson, Carman, and Gin teaches: the occlusion device of claim 13, see 103 rejection above. The combination of Watson and Carman further teaches: wherein each ring (Carman, each ring/circle of the mesh, see Fig. 4A) in the thin film mesh component 110 (Watson combined with Carman teaches the thin-film mesh component has rings) is configured to connect to surrounding rings (Carman, see Fig. 4A).
Claim 19
Watson discloses: A method of deploying an occlusion device 100 (see Figs. 6A-6B, [0014] and [0025]) into an aneurysm an aneurysm (see [0046]), the method comprising: advancing a delivery system catheter (see [0014]) carrying the occlusion device 100 to the aneurysm (see [0046]), the occlusion device 100 comprising a support structure 120 (see Figs. 6A-6B, [0064]) and a plurality of thin film mesh structures 110 (see Figs. 6A-6B, [0064] -[0065], the expandable components 110 may be formed of thin-film materials) extending from the support structure 120, the plurality of mesh structures 110 wrapped around the support structure (see Fig. 6A, they’re wrapped around 120, [0011]) in a first configuration (see Fig. 6A) when loaded in the delivery system (see [0006], low profile configuration, catheter), deploying the occlusion device 100 from the delivery system catheter such that the occlusion device 100 transitions from the first configuration (see Fig. 6A) to a second configuration (see Fig. 6B, [0047] and [0064]); and releasing the occlusion device 100 from the delivery system catheter (see [0046]-[0047]).
Watson does not explicitly disclose: with overlapping portions, each mesh structure having arrays of circular rings, each ring having no preferred axis and configured to deform in any direction.
However, Carman in a similar field of invention teaches an implantable occlusion device 70 (see Fig. 4A, [0062] and [0066]) for occluding an aneurysm (see [0062]) that comprises a thin-film mesh structure 70 (see Fig. 4A, [0066], thin-film sheet with circular fenestrations, hence a mesh made from nitinol, see also [0112], thin film meshwork). Carman further teaches: the mesh structure 70 comprising arrays of circular rings 72 (see Fig. 4A, [0066], arrays of circular ring holes 72), each ring 72 having no preferred axis (see [0066], 72 is referred to as circular, and a circle has no preferred axis, which is contrasted to the elliptical hole shown in Fig. 4C) and configured to deform in any direction (see [0059], the thin film is hyper-elastic, therefore it can deform in any direction without permanent deformation).
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 the mesh structure of Watson to incorporate the teachings of Carman and have the mesh structure comprising arrays of circular rings, each ring having no preferred axis and configured to deform in any direction. Motivation for such can be found in Carman as this structure allows for elongate greater than 100% without permanent deformation of the material, making it advantageous for attaching film to a self-expanding device (see [0059]).
However, Ginn in a similar field of invention teaches an occlusion device 20 (see Figs. 5A-5G) with a support structure 24 and a mesh component 30 + 22a/b (see [0021], can be made of mesh, also [0020], hydrogel/collagen, which are mesh-like as well). Ginn further teaches: the mesh structure 30 is wrapped around the support structure 20 with overlapping portions (see Figs. 5D-5E, [0074] rolled sheet, hence wrapped around with overlapping portions) in the first configuration (compressed configuration (see Figs. 5E and 5F).
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 the combination Watson and Carman to incorporate the teachings of Ginn and have the mesh structures wrapped around the support structure with overlapping portions in the first configuration. Motivation for such can be found in Ginn as this further compresses the mesh component in the first component to have a final device with a greater relative expansion (see [0074]-[0075]).
Claim 21
The combination of Watson, Carman, and Ginn teaches: the method of claim 19, see 103 rejection above. The combination of Watson and Carman further teaches: wherein each ring (Carman, each ring/circle of the mesh, see Fig. 4A) in the thin film mesh structures 110 (Watson combined with Carman teaches the thin-film mesh structures has rings) is configured to connect to surrounding rings (Carman, see Fig. 4A).
Claim 22
The combination of Watson, Carman, and Ginn teaches: the occlusion device of claim 2, see 103 rejection above. Watson further discloses: wherein the thin film mesh component 110 comprises nitinol (see [0036], the expandable components, 110, are formed using nitinol).
Claim 23
The combination of Watson, Carman, and Ginn teaches: the occlusion device of claim 13, see 103 rejection above. Watson further discloses: wherein the thin film mesh component 110 comprises nitinol (see [0036], the expandable components, 110, are formed using nitinol).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson in view of Carman and Ginn as applied to claims 13 above, and further in view of Deshpande et al (US 20090112228 A1) herein referenced to as “Deshpande”.
Claim 16
The combination of Watson, Carman, and Ginn teaches: the occlusion device of claim 13, see 103 rejection above. The combination of Watson, Carman, and Ginn does not explicitly teach: wherein each thin film mesh component comprises a disc having a slot.
However, Deshpande in a similar field of invention teaches an occlusive device 22 (see Figs. 3-4, since the device filters it occludes certain particles) with a mesh component 50 (see Fig. 4, the mesh includes everything but 54, which is not mesh). Deshpande further teaches: wherein each mesh component 50 comprises a disc 50 is a disc shape (see Fig. 4, [0045]) having a slot the slot of where there is no mesh, but 54 is inserted (see Fig. 4).
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 Watson and Carman to incorporate the teachings of Deshpande and have the thin film mesh component comprise a disc having a slot. Motivation for such can be found in Deshpande as this can avoid passing along any vibrations from a delivery device onto the mesh component (see [0046]).
Claim 17
The combination of Watson, Carman, Ginn, and Deshpande teaches: the occlusion device of claim 13, see 103 rejection above. Deshpande further teaches: wherein the disc 50 is a disc shape of each mesh component 50 has a conical shape conical shape (see Fig. 3) in the second configuration (see Fig. 3), the conical shape conical shape comprises an apex the apex adjacent to 14 (see Fig. 3) and an open end open end adjacent to 46 (see Fig. 3), the apex the apex adjacent to 14 of the disc 50 of each mesh component 50 being attached to the support structure 14 (see Fig. 3, the disc 50 is attached to 14).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson in view of Carman and Ginn as applied to claims 19 above, and further in view of Zhadkevich (US 20170100144 A1) herein referenced to as “Zhadkevich”.
Claim 20
The combination of Watson, Carman, and Ginn teaches: the occlusion device of claim 13, see 103 rejection above. Watson further discloses: wherein advancing the delivery system catheter (see [0014]) comprises advancing the delivery system (see [0014]) through a curved region in vasculature (see [0017], vasculature of blood vessels are curved, see also [0027], navigating to a patent ductus arteriosus would require navigating the aortic arch, which is a curved vessel), the curved region curved region of a blood vessel having an inner radius the inner radius of a blood vessel and an outer radius the outer region of a blood vessel.
The combination of Watson, Carman, and Ginn does not explicitly disclose: a first portion of each mesh structure expanding along an axis of bending along the outer radius and a second portion of each mesh structure contracting along the axis of bending along the inner radius.
However, Zhadkevich in a similar field of invention teaches a mesh structure (see Fig. 16A-16D) that is bendable. Zhadkevich further teaches: a first portion mesh undergoing axial traction of each mesh structure expanding along an axis of bending along the outer radius (see Fig. 16B, [0050], axial traction, or the force applied to an outer radius of a tube would cause a stretch and hence expansion along the axis of bending, similar to applicant’s Fig. 1C) and a second portion mesh undergoing axial compression of each mesh structure contracting along the axis of bending along the inner radius (see Fig. 16A, [0049], axial compression, or the force applied to an inner radius of a tube would cause a compressive force and hence contraction along the axis of bending, similar to applicant’s Fig. 1C).
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 the combination of Watson and Carman to incorporate the teachings of Zhadkevich and have a first portion of each mesh structure expanding along an axis of bending along the outer radius and a second portion of each mesh structure contracting along the axis of bending along the inner radius. Motivation for such can be found in Zhadkevich as compensatory stretching and compressing can allow the mesh to be more flexible without being damaged as it is bent navigating through the body, additionally the pore total area can be maintained (see [0078]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/KATHERINE H SCHWIKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771