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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Applicant contends the examiner used hindsight to reject the claims over Wu in view of Ehr. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees as it is well known in the art one can select the type of connector (flexible, non-flexible, rigid, non-rigid) to meet the needs of the desired requirements, use. For example, if needing to place a stent in a tortuous vessel, one would use a stretchable connector to allow for bending of the structure. Selecting a known bridge or connector only involves routine skill in the art and is evidenced by Ogi et al. (WO 98/30173) showing both types, rigid and stretchable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3,8,9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 106236338) in view of Ehr et al. (WO 98/48733) as evidenced by Ogi et al. (98/30173). Wu et al. show (Fig. 6) an auxetic island-bridge web structure or field structure comprising: island structure areas and bridges interconnecting respective island structure areas to form the island-bridge web structure or field structure, wherein there are open spaces between the respective island structure areas. Wu et al. disclose (page 2 of translation) the Poisson's ratio of the structure under uniaxial deformation is negative. Wu et al. further suggest (page 7 of translation) the island structure areas are not bendable when subjected to forces for stretching the bridges from the compressed state to the stretched state, wherein when stretching the bridges from the compressed state to the stretched state the stresses on the island structure areas are at least one order of magnitude below those of the bridges. However, Wu et al. did not disclose the bridges are stretchable between a compressed state and a stretched state and are configured as Archimedean spiral connections and/or self-similar fractal design connections. Ehr et al. teach (Figs. 18-25) that connections of structure in a support or expandable material web structure (Fig. 17) can be provided as spiral type. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to alternatively use an Archimedean spiral connection as taught by Ehr et al. with the web structure of Wu et al. such that it provide a region of low strain, see Ehr (page 1, lines 29-32). Ogi et al. show stent connections can be stretchable (Fig. 5a) or rigid (Fig. 5c) for flexibility as desired, see page 12, lines 1-19. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art is fully capable of selecting a stretchable connection based on the desired need or use of the stent to be designed. Regarding claim 2, Ehr et al. also teach (page 5, lines 7, 8, 16-18) the bridges vary in size and shape. With respect to claim 3, Wu et al. show (Fig. 6) that at least in sections of the auxetic island-bridge web structure or field structure, areas are formed identically and/or periodically. Regarding claim 8, Wu et al. disclose (title, abstract) the structure can be an implantable stent and made from shape memory material. However, Wu did not disclose the shape memory material is metallic. Ehr et al. teach (page 3, lines 3,4) that shape memory material such as nitinol can be used for an implantable stent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to alternatively use metal as the shape memory material for the implantable structure as taught by Ehr et al. with the configuration of the web structure of Wu et al. such that it provides an imageable material. With respect to claim 9, Wu et al. show (Figs. 1,2) web structures can be used in cylindrical or tubular form. Additionally, Wu discloses (page 4 of translation) the implantable structure can be self-expanding.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 106236338) in view of Ehr et al. (WO 98/48733) as evidenced by Ogi et al. and applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rolando et al. (EP 806190). Wu et al. in view of Ehr et al. is explained above. However, Wu et al. as modified with Ehr et al. did not disclose the self-similar fractal design connections comprise Koch's lines. Please note the connection with Koch's lines is best understood as a repeating pattern to allow for bending or arcuate flexing. Rolando et al. teach that (col. 12, lines 30-44) a connection having a self-similar fractal design that can be defined Koch's lines. Rolando shows (Fig. 11) a connection 30 with a self-similar fractal design that can be defined Koch's lines. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to alternatively substitute the connections in the web structure and use self-similar fractal design connections comprise Koch's lines as taught by Rolando et al. with the stent of Wu et al. as modified by Ehr et al. since the use of fractal geometry has been found advantageous since it enables the performance and/or the mechanical characteristics of the various portions of the wall of the stent 1 to be optimized with regard to the specific stresses to which it has to respond in use, see Rolando (col. 12, lines 57-59, col. 13, lines 1-3).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al.
(CN 106236338) in view of Ehr et al. (WO 98/48733) as evidenced by Ogi et al. and applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rogers et al. (8552299). Wu et al. in view of Ehr et al. is explained above. However, Wu et al. as modified with Ehr et al. did not disclose the auxetic island-bridge web structure or field structure is planar, 2D and when stretched develops 3D surfaces. Rogers et al. teach (col. 31, lines 11-22) a medical device or prosthetic that includes electronics can be configured with mechanical properties to optimize its functionality. Rogers et al. further teach (col. 3, lines 59-67) the manufactured covering structure can be made planar, but permits stretching and conformability to a 3D structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the auxetic web structure or field structure as planar, 2D and when stretched develops 3D surfaces as taught by Rogers et al. to provide the stent of Wu et al. as modified by Ehr et al. with enhanced conformability properties for cylindrical structures, see Rogers col. 6, lines 12-29.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al.
(CN 106236338) in view of Ehr et al. (WO 98/48733) as evidenced by Ogi et al. and applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oktay (2003/0040791). Wu et al. in view of Ehr et al. is explained above. However, Wu et al. as modified with Ehr et al. did not disclose one or more island structure areas adapted for receiving electronics or are equipped with electronics. Oktay teaches (Fig. 1) a web or field structure 100 that includes one or more island structure areas 104 for receiving electronics. Oktay further teaches (paragraph 57) the one or more island structure areas 104 are equipped with electronics on the web or field structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an electronics system in the island structure as taught by Okay with the stent of Wu et al. as modified by Ehr et al. such that it provides the ability to be electronically controlled, see Oktay paragraph 56.
Claim(s) 6,7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et
al. (CN 106236338) in view of Ehr et al. (WO 98/48733) as evidenced by Ogi et al. and applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toth (2014/0081154). Wu et al. in view of Ehr et al. is explained above. However, Wu et al. as modified with Ehr et al. did not disclose one or more island structure areas adapted for receiving electronics or are equipped with electronics. Toth teaches (Fig. 2) a web or field structure 210 that includes one or more island structure areas 220,230 for receiving electronics. Toth further teaches (abstract, paragraph 160) one or more island structure areas are equipped with electronics on the web or field structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an electronics system in the island structure as taught by Toth with the stent of Wu et al. as modified by Ehr et al. such that it provides the ability to monitor an implantable structure or tissue
surroundings, see abstract of Toth. Regarding claim 7, Wu as modified by Ehr did not
disclose the electronics located on the island structure areas are electrically connected
to each other via at least one conductor track electrically insulated from the auxetic web
structure or field structure on at least one connection of the auxetic web structure or
field structure. Toth teaches (Fig. 6a) the electronics located on the island structure
areas are electrically connected to each other via at least one conductor track 630 electrically insulated (paragraph 26) from the auxetic island-bridge web structure or field structure on at least one connection of the auxetic web structure or field structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the electronics located on the island structure areas are electrically connected to each other via at least one conductor track electrically insulated from the auxetic web structure or field structure on at least one connection of the auxetic web structure or field structure as taught by Toth with the stent structure having island structures of Wu modified by Ehr such that it allows for communication among the electrical components, see abstract.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al.
(CN 106236338) in view of Ehr et al. (WO 98/48733) as evidenced by Ogi et al. and applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Boyden et al. (2016/0000590). Wu et al. in view of Ehr et al. is explained above. However, Wu et al. as modified with Ehr et al. did not disclose the auxetic island-bridge web structure or field structure is a common ground electrode. Boyden et al. teach (Fig. 1C) an implantable structure in which includes an electrode 110. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an electrode in the implantable structure as taught by Boyden et al. with the stent of Wu et al. as modified by Ehr et al. such that it provides the ability to stimulate tissue, see Boyden paragraph 6.
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 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
Prosecution Insights