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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the individual island structure areas" in line 3 of the claim. The island structure areas were recited, but there is no indication they were distinct or individual or unattached. Also recited in line 6 of the claim was the limitation "the connections" and other lines also. It is not evident if this is meant as the interconnections. Further in line 12 of claim 1 was the limitation "the previous rigid connectors" not previously recited.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
The term “slightly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slightly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not evident to what degree of bending is within the scope of “slightly” but how can one discern a degree of slightly bending when the force is just arbitrary to cause the bending.
The term “insignificantly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “insignificantly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not evident to what degree of stresses is within the scope of “insignificantly variable” but how can one discern a degree of stress on the island structure area when no parameters even define the stress on an extensible connection.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the individual connections" in line 2 of the claim. The connections were recited, but there is no indication they were distinct or individual or unattached to make clear what connections are being referred to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims carry the same issues from the claim they depend from.
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) 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). Wu et al. show (Fig. 6) an auxetic web structure or field structure comprising: island structure areas and interconnections between the individual island structure areas, wherein there are open spaces between the individual island structure areas, and the connections with the island structure areas form a web structure or field structure. It can also be seen (Fig. 6) the connections intersect the island structure areas at the same location and at the same angle intersect the auxetic framework at the same location and angle as the previous rigid connectors. Wu et al further 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) that the island structure areas are not bendable or are only slightly bendable when subjected to forces. Wu et al. further disclose (page 5 of translation) the stresses on the island structure areas are not insignificantly variable in their magnitude. However, Wu et al. did not disclose the connections are extensible and are configured as Archimedean spiral 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). Regarding claim 2, Ehr et al. also teaches (page 5, lines 7,8,16-18) the individual connections are designed to vary in size and shape. With respect to claim 3, Wu et al. shows (Fig. 6) that at least in sections of the auxetic 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 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 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 web structure or field structure is planar, 2D fabricated and subsequently adapted to 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 fabricated and subsequently adapted to 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 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 at least individual island structure areas for receiving electronics or individual island structure areas equipped with electronics are provided. Oktay teaches (Fig. 1) a web or field structure 100 that includes at least individual island structure areas 104 for receiving electronics. Oktay further teaches (paragraph 57) the individual 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 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 at least individual island structure areas for receiving electronics or individual island structure areas equipped with electronics are provided. Toth teaches (Fig. 2) a web or field structure 210 that includes at least individual island structure areas 220,230 for receiving electronics. Toth further teaches (abstract, paragraph 160) the individual 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 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 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 web structure or field structure is provided in the form of 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.
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