Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/352,190

ANTI-MIGRATION STENT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 13, 2023
Examiner
DEAK, LESLIE R
Art Unit
3799
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
693 granted / 924 resolved
+5.0% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
967
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
47.9%
+7.9% vs TC avg
§102
25.1%
-14.9% vs TC avg
§112
11.4%
-28.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 924 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2020/0170776 to Folan. In the specification and figures, Folan discloses the apparatus as claimed by Applicant. With regard to claims 1-5, 12, Folan discloses a self-radially-expanding wire-braided stent with a radial outward surface 319, a radial inward surface (inside of tubular body 310), first end region 312, second end region 314 with a lumen a first flange 320 positioned at first end region, and second flange 322 positioned at second end region, with each end region comprising a second flange 340, 345 (see FIGS 7A, 7B, ¶0043, 0067, 0069). The flanges atraumatically engage vessel walls 18 (see FIG 7A). With regard to claims 6 and 7, Folan discloses that the saddle regions between the flanges may be between 5mm and 20 mm, within the range claimed by Applicant (see ¶0049). 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. Claims 9-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0170776 to Folan in view of 2022/0087852 to Gilmartin et al. In the specification and figures, Folan discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed by Applicant (see rejections above). With regard to claims 9-11, 14, 15, Folan does not disclose flanges with different outer diameters. However, Gilmartin discloses a radially expanding stent with a braided filament structure with multiple flanges 320, 380, 340 of different diameters to provide varying retention forces, wherein the flanges all have diameters greater than the medial region (see FIGS 4A, 4B, ¶0039-0040, 0042). With regard to claims 13 and 16, Gilmartin further discloses that the holding force of the flanges may be manipulated by not only flange diameter, but also wire thickness and braid angle, suggesting that some flanges may comprise braid angles that are different from one another in order to achieve a desired retention force (see ¶0042). With regard to claims 17 and 18, Folan discloses that the saddle regions between the flanges may be between 5mm and 20 mm, within the range claimed by Applicant (see ¶0049). With regard to claim 19, Gilmartin discloses a stent with a medial region and a first flange 340 with a first outer diameter at a first end region, a second flange 380 with a second outer diameter at a second end region, and a third flange 320 with a third outer diameter at a first end region, wherein the first flange 340 curves toward the third flange 320. With regard to claim 20 and the the diameter of the flanges, Applicant has not demonstrated criticality of the relative diameters to one another.It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use flanges with different diameters or braid angles, as taught by Gilmartin, in the expandable stent disclosed by Folan, in order to vary the retention force of the flanges, as taught by Gilmartin. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE R DEAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am to 5:30pm. 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. /LESLIE R DEAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 3 December 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 13, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599497
IMPLANTS WITH CONTROLLED DRUG DELIVERY FEATURES AND METHODS OF USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594186
AQUEOUS HUMOR DRAINAGE DEVICE WITH ADJUSTABLE TUBE DIAMETER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12575972
GLAUCOMA STENT AND METHODS THEREOF FOR GLAUCOMA TREATMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569604
METHOD AND DEVICES FOR DETERMINING A TIME POINT FOR MEASURING PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569654
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TREATMENT OF FLUID OVERLOAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+18.0%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 924 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month