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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Specie I: Figs. 1,2a-c,3a-c in the reply filed on 11/11/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Fig. 14 is not a separate specie, just an additional feature that can be on the different species. This is found persuasive upon further considerations and claim 20 will be considered with elected Specie I claims. Claims 7-13, 16, 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected specie, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/11/25.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5,14,21,22,23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown (3155095). The Examiner is entitled to give terms in a claim its plain meaning as interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that the specification must clearly set forth the definition explicitly and with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Exemplification is not an explicit definition. Even explicit definitions can be subject to varying interpretations. See Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp., 63 USPQ2d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002), Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1851,1854 (Fed. Cir. 2001) and MPEP 2111.01. Thus, the examiner is not giving any special definition to stent as it just an elongate tubular structure capable of maintaining a vessel lumen open and allow fluid passage therethrough. Fig. 6 shows a bioresorbable tubular organ stent assembly comprising: a stent 10 configured for retaining a first section of a tubular organ in contact with a second section of the tubular organ to accommodate joining of the first section and the second section, wherein a first end portion of the stent is configured to accommodate insertion into the first section and inhibit removal from the first section, wherein a second end portion of the stent is configured to accommodate insertion into the second section and inhibit removal from the second section, and wherein the stent is bioresorbable (col. 2, lines 17-21); and one or more retention devices 20 configurable to secure the first section and the second section to the stent. Brown also disclose each of the one or more retention devices is bioresorbable, col. 2, lines 51-54. Brown discloses (col. 2, line 35) the stent is intended for joining two sections of an organ. Regarding claims 2,23 please note claims are to a product and not a method of use, thus absent any special construction, dimension, etc. it is known in the art that stents can be used in a variety of different vessels, thus the stent is fully capable of being used in an intestine as it just an intended use recited in a product claim. With respect to claims 3,4 Brown discloses (col. 2, lines 21-24) that the stent comprises a tubular outer wall that defines a lumen configured for fluidly coupling the first section and the second section and since it is to restore fluid flow via the coated interior surface, thus blocking flow of contents of the tubular organ to interfaced portions of the first section and the second section. Regarding claim 5, Brown discloses (col. 2, lines 30-35) the first end portion comprises one or more first end portion retention features; the second end portion comprises one or more second end portion retention features; the one or more first end portion retention features are configured to interface with the first section and shaped to accommodate insertion of the first end portion into the first section and inhibit removal of the first end portion from the first section; and the one or more second end portion retention features are configured to interface with the second section and shaped to accommodate insertion of the second end portion into the second section and inhibit removal of the second end portion from the second section. Regarding claim 14, Brown discloses (col. 2, lines 47-51) the one retention device is operable to clamp the first section and the second section to an exterior surface of the stent. With respect to claim 21, Brown discloses (col. 2, lines 19-21) the stent comprises the material collagen. With respect to claim 22, Brown discloses (col. 2, lines 15,22,27,28) a method of connecting sections of a tubular organ, the method comprising: inserting a first end portion of a bioresorbable (col. 2, lines 19-21) stent into an open end of a first section of the tubular organ, See Fig. 4; inserting a second end portion of the bioresorbable stent into an open end of a second section of the tubular organ, see Fig. 5; and securing the first section and the second section to the bioresorbable stent, see Fig. 6.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (3155095) in view of Neilan (2012/0283811). Brown is explained supra. However, Brown did not disclose the one or more first end portion retention features comprise first end portion protruding barbs; and the one or more second end portion retention features comprise second end portion protruding barbs. Neilan shows (Fig. 2) a stent 200 including one or more first end portion retention features in the form of protruding barbs 208; and the one or more second end portion retention features also in the form of protruding barbs 208. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate one or more first end portion retention features defined as protruding barbs; and the one or more second end portion retention features defined as protruding barbs as taught by Neilan with the stent assembly of Brown such that one can prevent migration of the stent in the vessel section or separation of ends, see paragraph 24, Neilan.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (3155095) in view of Fahy (5741283). Brown is explained supra. However, Brown did not disclose the retention device comprises a clamping strap and a ratchet mechanism for adjusting a circumference of the clamping strap. Fahy shows (Figs. 5A-C) a retention device 100 in the form of a clamping strap having a ratchet mechanism. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a ratchet mechanism in a clamping strap as taught by Fahy with the stent assembly of Brown such that one can adjust the diameter as needed via the ratchet mechanism, see Fahy col. 8, line 41, col. 2, lines 64-67.
Claim(s) 18,19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (3155095) in view of Albanna (EP 2875834). Brown is explained supra. However, Brown did not disclose the stent comprises an antibacterial coating, such as a resorbable polymer with an antibiotic compound.. Albanna teaches (paragraphs 7,28,29) that a stent can be provided with an antibacterial coating, such as a resorbable polymer with an antibiotic compound. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a resorbable polymer with an antibiotic compound as a coating on the stent as taught by Albanna in the stent assembly of Brown such that one can prevent disease, see paragraph 16 of Albanna.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (3155095) in view of Asgari (WO 2008/098923). Brown is explained supra. However, Brown did not disclose the stent comprises a porous structure comprising interconnected pores. Asgari teaches (page 25 lines 21-27) a stent can be porous for use in many vessels. Asgari also teaches (page 17, lines 11-15) that the porous implant provides interconnected pores to provide a compartment or reservoir. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate interconnected pores of a porous stent as taught by Asgari with the stent assembly of Brown such that one can adjust the diameter as needed via the ratchet mechanism, see Asgari page 13, lines 18-21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Krautkremer et al. (2016/0242940) disclose a stent that is made of resorbable material and has resorbable anchors also, paragraph 68.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN E PELLEGRINO whose telephone number is (571)272-4756. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00pm M-F.
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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.
/BRIAN E PELLEGRINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799