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 .
Detailed Action
This is in response to the amendment filed 01/22/2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-12, 14-15 are allowed
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 4 recites an engagement tool with a first and second arm, hinge point, vessel guide and a positioning pin.
The office agrees the art of record fails to teach or suggest these features.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/22/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 5,941,908 (Goldsteen et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0207007 (Giasolli et al.), U.S. Patent Publication Number 2007/0055350 (Erickson et al.). U.S. Patent Publication Number 2002/0123790 (White et al.), U.S. Patent Publication Number 2005/0149166 (Schaeffer et al.)
Regarding claim 1, Goldsteen et al. discloses as shown in Figure 1, a stent operation system comprising: an engagement tool (one of clip structures 50, see col. 2, lines 59-67) comprising a first arm (one half of semicircular clip structure 50 which engages one of metal rings 32) and a second arm (the other one half of semicircular clip structure 50 which engages one of metal rings 32); a pull tool (the other one of clip structures 50, see col. 2, lines 59-67) comprising a first end (remote end of release portion 54) capable of positioning and a second end (end where semicircular clip structure 50 which engages one of metal rings 32) having a set of engagement arms (two halves of semicircular clip structure 50 which engages one of metal rings 32); a set of stents (metal rings 32, see col. col. 2, lines 59-67) where the stents are capable of being modified using expandable members permitting at least one of a diameter or length to be modified.
PNG
media_image1.png
187
342
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
256
334
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Goldsteen fails to disclose a stent delivery tool, the set of stents are coaxial stents.
Giasolli et al., from the same field of endeavor teaches a similar stent operation system as shown in Figure 4B, where the system includes a stent delivery tool (elongate body 11A, see paragraph [0079]) the stent delivery tool capable of placing a pair of stents onto a vessel, for the purpose of advancing a stent remotely.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stent operation system to the include the stent delivery tool in order to advance the set of stents remotely.
Erickson, from the same field of endeavor teaches a similar a stent operation system as shown in Figure 1 where a stent is the inform of coaxial stents for the purpose of allowing adjustment of the relative longitudinal and radial positions of components openings of the stents in order to meet the needs of a particular application. See paragraph [0021].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool disclosed by Goldsteen in view of Giasolli et al. to include a second stent that was coaxial with each of the metal rings 32 in order to configure each end of the stent operation system to be adjustable in order to meet the needs of a particular application.
White et al., from the same field of endeavor teaches a similar stent operation system where a stent includes exterior features (engagement members 21, see paragraph [0062]) configured to engage an interior of a vessel, for the purpose of preventing migration of stent. See abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool disclosed by Goldsteen in view of Giasolli et al. to include exterior features on the inner stents in order to prevent their migration within the body.
Schaeffer et al., from the same field of endeavor teaches a similar stent operation system where a stent includes interior features (barbs 42, see paragraph [0075]) configured to engage an interior of a vessel, for the purpose of preventing migration of stent. See paragraph [0075].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool disclosed by Goldsteen in view of Giasolli et al. to include exterior features on the outer stent in order to prevent their migration within the body.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 5,941,908 (Goldsteen et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0207007 (Giasolli et al.), U.S. Patent Publication Number 2007/0055350 (Erickson et al.). U.S. Patent Publication Number 2002/0123790 (White et al.), U.S. Patent Publication Number 2005/0149166 (Schaeffer et al.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Number 5,752,960 (Nallakrishnan)
Regarding claim 2, Goldsteen et al. wherein the engagement tool further comprises a first arm and a second arm; wherein the pull tool further comprises a first end having a U shape with at least one point for positioning, and a second end having a set of engagement arms; and wherein the set of stents are modifiable, and the stent delivery tool places the set of stents within at least one vessel.
Goldsteen fails to disclose wherein the second ends of the first arm and second arm are kept in a normally closed position with a biasing mechanism.
Nallakrishnan, from a related field of endeavor teaches a similar engagement tool as shown in Figure 1, wherein the second ends of the first arm and second arm are kept in a normally closed position with a biasing mechanism, wherein the first arm and the second arm each further comprise a crossover section, wherein a compressive force applied proximate the first ends causes a separating force at the second ends, wherein the first arm and the second arm each further comprise a reversed section, the reversed sections having respective engagement surfaces facing one another, wherein the first arm and the second arm each further comprise a reversed section, the reversed sections having respective engagement surfaces facing one another, wherein the upper section comprises an upper forward section and the lower section comprises a lower forward section, wherein the upper and lower forward sections are each tapered for ease of insertion into the first vessel. See col. 2, lines 24-28.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engagement tool disclosed by Goldsteen et al. such that the second ends of the first arm and second arm are kept in a normally closed position with a biasing mechanism in order to configure the second ends of the first arm and second arm to be kept in a closed position.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 5,941,908 (Goldsteen et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0207007 (Giasolli et al.), U.S. Patent Publication Number 2007/0055350 (Erickson et al.). U.S. Patent Publication Number 2002/0123790 (White et al.), U.S. Patent Publication Number 2005/0149166 (Schaeffer et al.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2001/0047197 (Foley)
Regarding claim 3, Goldsteen et al. in view of Giasolli et al. discloses wherein the set of stents further comprise a modifiable stent, and a second stent that a coaxial to one another in the stent deliver tool and when deployed. See Figure 3.
Goldsteen et al. fails to disclose the second stent is a coil stent.
Foley, from a related field of endeavor teaches as similar stent operation system as shown in Figure 7, where a second stent is in the form of a coil stent. See paragraph [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stent operation system disclosed by Goldsteen et al. in view of Giasolli et al. by substitution the second stent for the second stent disclosed by Foley such that the set of stents further comprise a modifiable stent, and a coil stent that a coaxial to one another in the stent deliver tool and when deployed because it would only require the simple substitution of one known alternative configuration for another to produce nothing but predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026, see pages 20-22 have been considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD G LOUIS whose telephone number is 571-270-1965. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9:30 – 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Jackie Ho at 571-272-4696. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD G LOUIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights