DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claim 6 is 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.
5. Claim 6 recites being dependent upon claim 5. However, claim 5 has been cancelled. Therefore, claim 6 is rendered indefinite. Proper correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8-11, and 13-15 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: an implant for implanting in a hollow organ or a vessel of a body, wherein the implant is composed of a filament that comprises at least one polymeric matrix material in which a magnetically heatable filler is arranged is well known in the art. This is supported by at least the references cited during the prosecution of this case, as well as other references in the general area that could be located with minimal effort. However, the prior art of record fails to specifically teach the filament having a cross section with a core-sheath structure characterized in that the core forms a polymeric reinforcing structure, and in that the sheath comprises the polymeric matrix material, wherein the core is filamentary and formed from solid material and the sheath has a tubular structure formed around the core, and wherein the implant is a textile stent having a braided structure. The prior art also fails to provide sufficient motivation to make such specific modifications and would require improper use of hindsight to arrive at the claimed invention when considered along or in any proper combination.
7. Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
8. 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.
/ANNIE L SHOULDERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights