DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Note: This office action is in response to communication filed on 05/11/2026.
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 .
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 11, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending in the application.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the independent claim(s) has/have been amended and the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 3-8 is/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 3 recites the limitations “upon bioabsorption of the tubular structure, the medial region of the radially expanding tubular framework radially expands to a second, expanded configuration” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “second, expanded configuration” in the claim. The limitation has been examined below as if it read -- upon bioabsorption of the tubular structure, the medial region of the radially expanding tubular framework radially expands to [[the second, expanded configuration --.
Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 3 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berglund (US PGPUB 20100286758).
Regarding claim 11, Berglund discloses a stent (a stent 116: ¶0022 and Fig. 1) comprising:
a radially expanding tubular framework (a tubular framework of the stent 116 that is deployed by self-expansion or by radial expansion force from a delivery catheter its desired diameter at a treatment side: ¶0022, 0032, and Fig. 1) having a radially outward surface (¶0022, 0032, and Figs. 1-2), a radially inward surface (¶0022, 0032, and Figs. 1-2), a first end region (a proximal end 126: ¶0022 and Fig. 1), a second end region (a distal end 128: ¶0022 and Fig. 1), a medial region positioned between the first end region and the second end region (a medial region positioned between the first end region 126 and the second end region 128: ¶0022 and Fig. 1), and a lumen extending from the first end region to the second end region (a flow lumen 108: ¶0023 and Figs. 2-5); and
a tubular structure formed from a bioabsorbable material (the tubular structure 100/1000 comprises a biodegradable body 102/1002: ¶0020, 0023, 0025, and 0035) circumferentially surrounds and radially constrains the medial region (a tubular plug 100/1000 is configured to be disposed anywhere within the stent 116: ¶0022-0023 and 0035; thus, Berglund implicitly discloses that the tubular structure 100/1000 is configured to circumferentially surround and radially constrain the medial region), the tubular structure configured to maintain the medial region in a first, compressed configuration while the first end region and the second end region are permitted to expand (the tubular structure 1000 has an hourglass-shaped lumen 1008 with a constricted midsection 1005 extending between an inlet 1004 and an outlet 1006: ¶0035; a first, compressed configuration is shown in Fig. 10),
wherein the tubular structure is configured to degrade in vivo to release the radial constraint on the medial region such that the medial region transitions from the first, compressed configuration to a second, expanded configuration after implantation (the tubular structure 100/1000 comprises a biodegradable body 102/1002 configured to degrade in vivo release the radial constraint on the medial region: ¶0020, 0026, 0035; a second, expanded configuration is shown in Fig. 12); and
wherein the radially expanding tubular framework includes a coating applied over the radially expanding tubular framework (spraying or dip coating is fully embed the stent framework: ¶0031).
Regarding claim 12, Berglund discloses when the medial region is in the second, expanded configuration, the medial region is configured to engage with a tissue surface, thereby exerting a radial force to prevent migration of the stent (¶0023; Figs. 5 and 12: the medial region of Berglund is capable of engaging with a tissue surface, thereby exerting a radial force to prevent migration of the stent).
Regarding claim 13, Berglund further discloses the medial region of the radially expanding tubular framework includes a first, inner diameter when in the first, compressed configuration and a second, inner diameter when in the second, expanded configuration, wherein the second, inner diameter is greater than the first, inner diameter (an expanded diameter is greater than a constricted diameter: ¶0035 and Figs. 10-12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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) 1-6 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berglund (US PGPUB 20100286758) in view of Nolan (US PGPUB 20200093622).
Regarding claim 1, Berglund discloses a stent (a stent 116: ¶0022 and Fig. 1) comprising:
a radially expanding tubular framework (a tubular framework of the stent 116 that is deployed by self-expansion or by radial expansion force from a delivery catheter its desired diameter at a treatment side: ¶0022, 0032, and Fig. 1) having a radially outward surface (¶0022, 0032, and Figs. 1-2), a radially inward surface (¶0022, 0032, and Figs. 1-2), a first end region (a proximal end 126: ¶0022 and Fig. 1), a second end region (a distal end 128: ¶0022 and Fig. 1), a medial region positioned between the first end region and the second end region (a medial region positioned between the first end region 126 and the second end region 128: ¶0022 and Fig. 1), and a lumen extending from the first end region to the second end region (a flow lumen 108: ¶0023 and Figs. 2-5); and
a tubular structure positioned over the medial region (a tubular plug 100/1000 is configured to be disposed anywhere within the stent 116: ¶0022; thus, Berglund implicitly discloses that the tubular structure 100/1000 is configured to be positioned over the medial region);
wherein the tubular structure circumferentially surrounds and radially constrains the medial region to maintain the medial region in a first, compressed configuration while the first end region and the second end region are permitted to expand (the tubular structure 1000 has an hourglass-shaped lumen 1008 with a constricted midsection 1005 extending between an inlet 1004 and an outlet 1006: ¶0035; a first, compressed configuration is shown in Fig. 10),
wherein the tubular structure is configured to degrade in vivo to release the radial constraint on the medial region such that the medial region transitions from the first, compressed configuration to a second, expanded configuration after implantation (the tubular structure 100/1000 comprises a biodegradable body 102/1002 configured to degrade in vivo release the radial constraint on the medial region: ¶0020, 0026, 0035; a second, expanded configuration is shown in Fig. 12);
Berglund does not disclose one of the first end region or the second end region includes a first flange structure.
In the same field of endeavor, stent, Nolan discloses a stent 10 comprising a proximal end 14, a distal end 16, an intermediate region 18 disposed between the first end 14 and the second end 16, and a lumen 20 extending from a first opening adjacent the first end 14 to a second opening adjacent to the second end 16 (¶0053 and Fig. 1). Nolan further discloses to have anti-migration flared region positioned adjacent to the proximal end or the distal end (¶0057 and Figs. 1-3) for the benefits of engaging the stent to an interior portion of wall of body lumen and/or preventing the stent from migrating once placed in body lumen (¶0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the stent of Berglund in view of Nolan by having a first flange structure in the first end region or the second end region, in order to engage the stent to an interior portion of wall of body lumen and/or prevent the stent from migrating once placed in body lumen, as suggested in ¶0057 of Nolan and as it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination (See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (B)).
Regarding claim 2, Berglund further discloses the tubular structure is formed from a bioabsorbable material (the tubular structure 100/1000 comprises a biodegradable body 102/1002: ¶0020, 0023, 0025, and 0035).
Regarding claim 3, Berglund further discloses upon bioabsorption of the tubular structure, the medial region of the radially expanding tubular framework radially expands to the second, expanded configuration (¶0020, 0026, 0035, and Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 4, Berglund further discloses the expansion of the medial region of the radially expanding tubular framework is progressive over a period of time due to the bioabsorption of the tubular structure (¶0026-0028).
Regarding claim 5, Berglund in view of Nolan further discloses when the medial region is in the second, expanded configuration, the medial region is configured to engage with a tissue surface, thereby exerting a radial force to prevent migration of the stent (see rejection of claim 1 above: the medial region of Berglund/Nolan is capable of engaging with a tissue surface, thereby exerting a radial force to prevent migration of the stent).
Regarding claim 6, Berglund further discloses the medial region of the radially expanding tubular framework includes a first, inner diameter when in the first, compressed configuration and a second, inner diameter when in the second, expanded configuration, wherein the second, inner diameter is greater than the first, inner diameter (an expanded diameter is greater than a constricted diameter: ¶0035 and Figs. 10-12).
Regarding claim 9, Berglund further discloses the radially expanding tubular framework includes a coating applied over the radially expanding tubular framework (spraying or dip coating is fully embed the stent framework: ¶0031).
Regarding claim 10, Berglund does not disclose the other one of the first end region or the second end region includes a second flange structure.
Nolan further discloses to have anti-migration flared region positioned adjacent to the proximal end or the distal end (¶0057 and Figs. 1-3) for the benefits of engaging the stent to an interior portion of wall of body lumen and/or preventing the stent from migrating once placed in body lumen (¶0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the stent of Berglund in view of Nolan by having a second flange structure in the other one of the first end region or the second end region, in order to engage the stent to an interior portion of wall of body lumen and/or prevent the stent from migrating once placed in body lumen, as suggested in ¶0057 of Nolan and as it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination (See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (B)).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Berglund (US PGPUB 20100286758) in view of Nolan (US PGPUB 20200093622), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Hingston (US PGPUB 20180250501).
Regarding claim 7, Berglund/Nolan does not disclose the second, inner diameter is 25% greater than the first, inner diameter.
However, Berglund discloses/suggests that the first, inner diameter is at least 10% less than the second, inner diameter (¶0023: which means the second, inner diameter is at least 11.11% greater than the first, inner diameter; thus, the taught range overlaps the claimed range).
In the same field of endeavor, stent, Hingston discloses a stent 102 configured to move between a first/compressed configuration/diameter and a second/expanded configuration/diameter (¶0020, 0023, and Figs. 1A-B). Hingston further discloses the stent configured to increase up to 50% as the stent moves from the first/compressed configuration/diameter to the second/expanded configuration/diameter (¶0023: the taught range overlaps the claimed range) for the benefit of adapting the stent to tissue conformable (¶0022-0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the stent of Berglund in view of Hingston by having the second diameter 25% greater than the first diameter, in order to adapt the stent to tissue conformable, as suggested in ¶0023 of Berglund, ¶0022-0024 of Hingston, and as it has been held that scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (A)). Further, Applicant places no criticality on the dimension claimed, indicating simply that the second, inner diameter may be 25% greater than the first, inner diameter (¶0010, 0017, and 0022). Furthermore, one would have been motivated to have the second diameter 25% greater than the first diameter in order to accommodate insertion of the stent through tissue.
Regarding claim 8, Berglund/Nolan does not disclose the second, inner diameter is 10% - 25% greater than the first, inner diameter.
However, Berglund discloses/suggests that the first, inner diameter is at least 10% less than the second, inner diameter (¶0023: which means the second, inner diameter is at least 11.11% greater than the first, inner diameter; thus, the taught range overlaps the claimed range).
Hingston further discloses the stent configured to increase up to 50% as the stent moves from the first/compressed configuration/diameter to the second/expanded configuration/diameter (¶0023: the taught range overlaps the claimed range) for the benefit of adapting the stent to tissue conformable (¶0022-0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the stent of Berglund in view of Hingston by having the second diameter 10% - 25% greater than the first diameter, in order to adapt the stent to tissue conformable, as suggested in ¶0022-0024 of Hingston and as it has been held that scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (A)). Further, Applicant places no criticality on the dimension claimed, indicating simply that the second, inner diameter may be 10%-25% greater than the first, inner diameter (¶0011, 0018, and 0023). Furthermore, one would have been motivated to have the second diameter 10%-25% greater than the first diameter in order to accommodate insertion of the stent through tissue.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Berglund (US PGPUB 20100286758) in view of Hingston (US PGPUB 20180250501).
Regarding claim 14, Berglund does not disclose the second, inner diameter is 25% greater than the first, inner diameter.
However, Berglund discloses/suggests that the first, inner diameter is at least 10% less than the second, inner diameter (¶0023: which means the second, inner diameter is at least 11.11% greater than the first, inner diameter; thus, the taught range overlaps the claimed range).
In the same field of endeavor, stent, Hingston discloses a stent 102 configured to move between a first/compressed configuration/diameter and a second/expanded configuration/diameter (¶0020, 0023, and Figs. 1A-B). Hingston further discloses the stent configured to increase up to 50% as the stent moves from the first/compressed configuration/diameter to the second/expanded configuration/diameter (¶0023: the taught range overlaps the claimed range) for the benefit of adapting the stent to tissue conformable (¶0022-0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the stent of Berglund in view of Hingston by having the second diameter 25% greater than the first diameter, in order to adapt the stent to tissue conformable, as suggested in ¶0023 of Berglund, ¶0022-0024 of Hingston, and as it has been held that scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (A)). Further, Applicant places no criticality on the dimension claimed, indicating simply that the second, inner diameter may be 25% greater than the first, inner diameter (¶0010, 0017, and 0022). Furthermore, one would have been motivated to have the second diameter 25% greater than the first diameter in order to accommodate insertion of the stent through tissue.
Regarding claim 15, Berglund does not disclose the second, inner diameter is 10% - 25% greater than the first, inner diameter.
However, Berglund discloses/suggests that the first, inner diameter is at least 10% less than the second, inner diameter (¶0023: which means the second, inner diameter is at least 11.11% greater than the first, inner diameter; thus, the taught range overlaps the claimed range).
Hingston further discloses the stent configured to increase up to 50% as the stent moves from the first/compressed configuration/diameter to the second/expanded configuration/diameter (¶0023: the taught range overlaps the claimed range) for the benefit of adapting the stent to tissue conformable (¶0022-0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the stent of Berglund in view of Hingston by having the second diameter 10% - 25% greater than the first diameter, in order to adapt the stent to tissue conformable, as suggested in ¶0022-0024 of Hingston and as it has been held that scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (A)). Further, Applicant places no criticality on the dimension claimed, indicating simply that the second, inner diameter may be 10%-25% greater than the first, inner diameter (¶0011, 0018, and 0023). Furthermore, one would have been motivated to have the second diameter 10%-25% greater than the first diameter in order to accommodate insertion of the stent through tissue.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Berglund (US PGPUB 20100286758) in view of Nolan (US PGPUB 20200093622).
Regarding claim 16, Berglund does not disclose the first end region includes a first flange structure and the second end region includes a second flange structure.
Nolan further discloses to have anti-migration flared region positioned adjacent to the proximal end or the distal end (¶0057 and Figs. 1-3) for the benefits of engaging the stent to an interior portion of wall of body lumen and/or preventing the stent from migrating once placed in body lumen (¶0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the stent of Berglund in view of Nolan by having a first flange structure in the first end region and a second flange structure in the second end region, in order to engage the stent to an interior portion of wall of body lumen and/or prevent the stent from migrating once placed in body lumen, as suggested in ¶0057 of Nolan and as it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination (See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (B)).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berglund (US PGPUB 20100286758) in view of Hall (US PGPUB 20210106444).
Regarding claim 17, Berglund discloses a stent (a stent 116: ¶0022 and Fig. 1) comprising:
a radially expanding tubular framework (a tubular framework of the stent 116 that is deployed by self-expansion or by radial expansion force from a delivery catheter its desired diameter at a treatment side: ¶0022, 0032, and Fig. 1) having a radially outward surface (¶0022, 0032, and Figs. 1-2), a radially inward surface (¶0022, 0032, and Figs. 1-2), a first end region (a proximal end 126: ¶0022 and Fig. 1), a second end region (a distal end 128: ¶0022 and Fig. 1), a medial region positioned between the first end region and the second end region (a medial region positioned between the first end region 126 and the second end region 128: ¶0022 and Fig. 1); and
a tubular structure formed from a bioabsorbable material (the tubular structure 100/1000 comprises a biodegradable body 102/1002: ¶0020, 0023, 0025, and 0035) circumferentially surrounds and radially constrains the medial region (a tubular plug 100/1000 is configured to be disposed anywhere within the stent 116: ¶0022-0023 and 0035; thus, Berglund implicitly discloses that the tubular structure 100/1000 is configured to circumferentially surround and radially constrain the medial region), the tubular structure configured to maintain the medial region in a first, compressed configuration while the first end region and the second end region are permitted to expand (the tubular structure 1000 has an hourglass-shaped lumen 1008 with a constricted midsection 1005 extending between an inlet 1004 and an outlet 1006: ¶0035; a first, compressed configuration is shown in Fig. 10);
wherein the tubular structure is configured to degrade in vivo to release the radial constraint on the medial region such that the medial region transitions from the first, compressed configuration to a second, expanded configuration after implantation (the tubular structure 100/1000 comprises a biodegradable body 102/1002 configured to degrade in vivo release the radial constraint on the medial region: ¶0020, 0026, 0035; a second, expanded configuration is shown in Fig. 12);
the expansion of the medial region of the radially expanding tubular framework is progressive over a period of time due to the bioabsorption of the tubular structure (¶0026-0028);
the medial region of the radially expanding tubular framework includes a first, inner diameter when in the first, compressed configuration and a second, inner diameter when in the second, expanded configuration, wherein the second, inner diameter is greater than the first, inner diameter (an expanded diameter is greater than a constricted diameter: ¶0035 and Figs. 10-12).
Berglund does not disclose the tubular structure has a wall thickness between 0.05 millimeters and 0.25 millimeters.
In the same field of endeavor, stent, Hall discloses an endovascular prothesis 100 comprising a tubular body 110 and a stent 150 (¶0042 and Figs. 1A-2B). Hall further discloses a thickness of a wall 119 of the tubular body 110 is from 0.07 mm to 0.5 mm (¶0042; thus, the taught thickness range overlaps the claimed thickness range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the stent of Berglund in view of Hall by having a wall thickness of the tubular structure between 0.05 millimeters and 0.25 millimeters, motivated by the desires to provide a tubular body of a stent that has good mechanical strength and as it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed ranges overlap with ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). Further, Applicant places no criticality on the thickness claimed, indicating simply that the tubular structure may have a thickness of 0.05 mm, 0.075 mm, 0.25 mm, 0.30 mm, or any other suitable thickness (¶0061).
Regarding claim 18, Berglund further discloses when the medial region is in the second, expanded configuration, the medial region is configured to engage with a tissue surface, thereby exerting a radial force to prevent migration of the stent (¶0023; Figs. 5 and 12: the medial region of Berglund is capable of engaging with a tissue surface, thereby exerting a radial force to prevent migration of the stent).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Berglund (US PGPUB 20100286758) in view of Hall (US PGPUB 20210106444), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Hingston (US PGPUB 20180250501).
Regarding claim 19, Berglund/Hall does not disclose the second, inner diameter is 25% greater than the first, inner diameter.
However, Berglund discloses/suggests that the first, inner diameter is at least 10% less than the second, inner diameter (¶0023: which means the second, inner diameter is at least 11.11% greater than the first, inner diameter; thus, the taught range overlaps the claimed range).
Hingston further discloses the stent configured to increase up to 50% as the stent moves from the first/compressed configuration/diameter to the second/expanded configuration/diameter (¶0023: the taught range overlaps the claimed range) for the benefit of adapting the stent to tissue conformable (¶0022-0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the stent of Berglund in view of Hingston by having the second diameter 25% greater than the first diameter, in order to adapt the stent to tissue conformable, as suggested in ¶0023 of Berglund, ¶0022-0024 of Hingston, and as it has been held that scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (A)). Further, Applicant places no criticality on the dimension claimed, indicating simply that the second, inner diameter may be 25% greater than the first, inner diameter (¶0010, 0017, and 0022). Furthermore, one would have been motivated to have the second diameter 25% greater than the first diameter in order to accommodate insertion of the stent through tissue.
Regarding claim 20, Berglund/Hall does not disclose the second, inner diameter is 10% - 25% greater than the first, inner diameter.
However, Berglund discloses/suggests that the first, inner diameter is at least 10% less than the second, inner diameter (¶0023: which means the second, inner diameter is at least 11.11% greater than the first, inner diameter; thus, the taught range overlaps the claimed range).
Hingston further discloses the stent configured to increase up to 50% as the stent moves from the first/compressed configuration/diameter to the second/expanded configuration/diameter (¶0023: the taught range overlaps the claimed range) for the benefit of adapting the stent to tissue conformable (¶0022-0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the stent of Berglund in view of Hingston by having the second diameter 10% - 25% greater than the first diameter, in order to adapt the stent to tissue conformable, as suggested in ¶0022-0024 of Hingston and as it has been held that scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (A)). Further, Applicant places no criticality on the dimension claimed, indicating simply that the second, inner diameter may be 10%-25% greater than the first, inner diameter (¶0011, 0018, and 0023). Furthermore, one would have been motivated to have the second diameter 10%-25% greater than the first diameter in order to accommodate insertion of the stent through tissue.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHU Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00 (PST).
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, SARAH AL-HASHIMI can be reached at (571) 272-7159. 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.
/NHU Q. TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/ANDREW J MENSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights