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 .
Status of the Claims
The amendment filed 02/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-14 and 16-18 are pending and under consideration.
Response to Arguments
In response to the applicant’s argument, see pages 6, with respect to 35 USC 102 rejections have been considered and are at least partially persuasive, but are moot in light of new rejection/interpretation.
In response to the applicant’s argument, see pages 7-8, with respect to 35 USC 103 rejections have been considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons below.
Applicant argues that Magal (US 20110040232 A1) fails to teach (claim 13) “wherein the securement point comprises a stomach wall of the stomach”, because it teaches, in figure 3f, extracutaneous anchor 84 engages the abdominal muscle layer 74, . This is not found persuasive. As noted in the previous non-final rejection, the rejection is not limited to the embodiment of figure 3f, Magal expressly discloses in paragraph [0165] “…the tether passes only through the gastric wall and is secured to an anchor located on and contacting an outer surface of the stomach, in some embodiments the peritoneum. In some such embodiments, an anchor distributes forces over the outer surface of the stomach…” (emphasize added). Magal’s explicit disclosure of an anchor secured to and contacting the outer surface of the stomach wall directly teaches the claimed securement point comprising a stomach wall. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC 103 is maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/223269 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application claim 1 recites all feature in the current claim 1, including an occlusion device, an anastomosis anchor and a tether.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/354286 (reference application) in view of Abu Dayyeh (US 20200390580 A1).
The reference application claim 1 recites features in the claim 1, including an occlusion device, an anastomosis anchor and a tether except for a dynamic leash adapted to extend through the patient’s stomach, the dynamic leash further adapted to provide a tensile force to the occlusion device that is in opposition to that provided by the tether.
In the same field of endeavor, namely devices for gastricintestinal tract bypass, Abu Dayyeh teaches a dynamic leash (figure 5 and [0065] expandable coil 100 anchors the occlusion device and bypass device via the stomach, in contrast to the tubular body that anchors them through the duodenum, thereby delivering an opposing tensile force to the tubular body.) adapted to extend through the patient’s stomach, the dynamic leash further adapted to provide a tensile force to the occlusion device that is in opposition to that provided by the tether.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reference application to incorporate the teachings of Abu Dayyeh and provides the dynamic leash as claimed for the purpose of preventing migration or unnecessary movement of the occlusion device or the bypass device as taught by Abu Dayyeh ([0050])
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/354155 (reference application) in view of Abu Dayyeh (US 20200390580 A1).
The reference application claim 1 recites features in the claim 1, including an occlusion device, an anastomosis anchor and a tether except for a dynamic leash adapted to extend through the patient’s stomach, the dynamic leash further adapted to provide a tensile force to the occlusion device that is in opposition to that provided by the tether.
In the same field of endeavor, namely devices for gastricintestinal tract bypass, Abu Dayyeh teaches a dynamic leash (figure 5 and [0065] expandable coil 100 anchors the occlusion device and bypass device via the stomach, in contrast to the tubular body that anchors them through the duodenum, thereby delivering an opposing tensile force to the tubular body.) adapted to extend through the patient’s stomach, the dynamic leash further adapted to provide a tensile force to the occlusion device that is in opposition to that provided by the tether.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reference application to incorporate the teachings of Abu Dayyeh and provides the dynamic leash as claimed for the purpose of preventing migration or unnecessary movement of the occlusion device or the bypass device as taught by Abu Dayyeh ([0050])
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/354332(reference application) in view of Abu Dayyeh (US 20200390580 A1).
the reference application claim 1 recites features in the claim 1, including an occlusion device, an anastomosis anchor and a tether except for a dynamic leash adapted to extend through the patient’s stomach, the dynamic leash further adapted to provide a tensile force to the occlusion device that is in opposition to that provided by the tether.
In the same field of endeavor, namely devices for gastricintestinal tract bypass, Abu Dayyeh teaches a dynamic leash (figure 5 and [0065] expandable coil 100 anchors the occlusion device and bypass device via the stomach, in contrast to the tubular body that anchors them through the duodenum, thereby delivering an opposing tensile force to the tubular body.) adapted to extend through the patient’s stomach, the dynamic leash further adapted to provide a tensile force to the occlusion device that is in opposition to that provided by the tether.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reference application to incorporate the teachings of Abu Dayyeh and provides the dynamic leash as claimed for the purpose of preventing migration or unnecessary movement of the occlusion device or the bypass device as taught by Abu Dayyeh ([0050])
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5 and 6 of copending Application No. 18/354346 (reference application) in view of Abu Dayyeh (US 20200390580 A1).
The reference application claims 1, 5 and 7 recites features in the claim 1, including an occlusion device, an anastomosis anchor and a tether except for a dynamic leash adapted to extend through the patient’s stomach, the dynamic leash further adapted to provide a tensile force to the occlusion device that is in opposition to that provided by the tether.
In the same field of endeavor, namely devices for gastricintestinal tract bypass, Abu Dayyeh teaches a dynamic leash (figure 5 and [0065] expandable coil 100 anchors the occlusion device and bypass device via the stomach, in contrast to the tubular body that anchors them through the duodenum, thereby delivering an opposing tensile force to the tubular body.) adapted to extend through the patient’s stomach, the dynamic leash further adapted to provide a tensile force to the occlusion device that is in opposition to that provided by the tether.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reference application to incorporate the teachings of Abu Dayyeh and provides the dynamic leash as claimed for the purpose of preventing migration or unnecessary movement of the occlusion device or the bypass device as taught by Abu Dayyeh ([0050])
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 line 2 recites “the first spring” which should read “the first coil spring”
Claim 5 line 2 recites “the second spring” which should read “the second coil spring”
Claim 6 line 2 recites “the first spring” and “the second spring” which should read “the first coil spring” and ‘the second coil spring” respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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.
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 1, 3, 5-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abu Dayyeh (US 20200390580 A1) in view of Albrecht et al (US 20130030350 A1).
Abu Dayyeh substantially teaches applicant’s claimed invention, and specifically discloses a device with every structural limitation of applicant’s claimed invention (except for the limitations shown in italics and grayed-out) including:
An implantable medical device system (figures 2-5 and 9, an occlusion device 50 + bypass device 70), comprising:
an occlusion device (figures 2-5 and 9, the occlusion device 50 comprising an occlusion member 56, further illustrated in figure 9, 136, adapted to be secured in place relative to a pyloric sphincter 20) adapted to be secured in place relative to a pylorus;
an anastomosis anchor (figures 2-5 and 9, the bypass device 70 comprising anchor member 72, further illustrated in figure 9, 140, sis configured to be secured at anastomosis 26) adapted to be secured in place relative to an anastomosis formed between a stomach wall and a small intestine;
a tether (figures 2-5 and 9, occlusion device 50 comprising a tubular body 52, further illustrated in figure 9, 138, adapted to extend through duodenum 18) adapted to extend through a duodenum, the tether secured at a first end (figures 2-5 and 9, first end of tubular body 52 secured at the occlusion member 56) to the occlusion device and at a second end to the anastomosis anchor (figures 2-5 and 9, opposite end secured at the anchor member 72), the tether comprising a first coil spring (figure 9 and [0059] tubular body is formed of stretchable material comprising a first spring constant configured to provide a tensile force to the occlusion member 56) with a first spring constant, the tether further adapted to provide a tensile force to the occlusion device; and
a dynamic leash (figure 5 and [0065], expandable coil 100 adapted to extend through a stomach, the dynamic leash comprising a second coil spring ([0050] namely an expandable coil comprising some degree of spring constant) with a second spring constant, the dynamic leash further adapted to provide a tensile force to the occlusion device that is in opposition to that provided by the tether ([0050] the expandable coil connects the occlusion device 50 and the bypass device 70 delivering an opposing tensile force to the tubular body).
Abu Dayyeh does not teach the first spring is a coil spring.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a device and method for anchoring an endoluminal sleeve, Albrecht teaches a pull resistant tether (figure 6, 9) comprising a first coil spring (figure 6 and [0072] elastic coil spring 28).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abu Dayyeh to incorporate the teachings of Albrecht and substitute the first spring of Abu Dayyeh, as the modification would have been a simple substitution of known element (latex or rubber spring of Abu Dayyeh) with another (coil spring of Albrecht) to obtain predicable results (stretch and retract to adapt to gastric and duodenal peristaltic movement).
Regarding claim 3, Abu Dayyeh, as modified by Albrecht, teaches the implantable medical device system of claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein the second spring constant is different from the first spring constant.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abu Dayyeh, as modified by Albrecht, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have the second spring constant is different from the first spring constant as a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to peruse the known options (the first spring constant being equal or different to the second spring constant) within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success (providing desired tensile forces to the occlusion device and the anastomosis anchor that overcomes gastric and duodenal peristatic movement thereby placing them in desired place, e.g., pyloric sphincter and anastomosis), it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instant case, that the modification involves obvious to try see MPEP2143.
Regarding claim 4, Abu Dayyeh, as modified by Albrecht, teaches the implantable medical device system of claim 2.
The combination further teaches wherein the first coil spring is adapted to resist gastrointestinal system movements that could otherwise cause the occlusion device to move into the patient's stomach ([0050] and [0059] connecting occlusion member 56 and bypass device 70 through tubular body prevent migration or unnecessary movement within the small intestine and/or the stomach )
Regarding claim 5, Abu Dayyeh, as modified by Albrecht, teaches the implantable medical device system of claim 2.
The combination further teaches wherein the second coil spring is adapted to resist gastrointestinal system movements that could otherwise cause the occlusion device to move into the patient's duodenum (Abu Dayyeh; [0050] and [0059] connecting occlusion member 56 and bypass device 70 through the expandable coil prevent migration or unnecessary movement within the small intestine and/or the stomach )
Regarding claim 6, Abu Dayyeh, as modified by Albrecht, teaches the implantable medical device system of claim 2.
The combination further teaches wherein the first coil spring is adapted to work together with the second coil spring to keep the occlusion device in place relative to the patient's pylorus (Abu Dayyeh; figure 5, [0040] and [0050] connecting the occluding member and bypass device with the tubular body and expandable coil keep the occluding member in place)
Regarding claim 7, Abu Dayyeh, as modified by Albrecht, teaches the implantable medical device system of claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the dynamic leash is adapted to be secured at one end to the occlusion device and at an opposing end to the anastomosis anchor (Abu Dayyeh; figure 5, one end of expandable coil 100 secured to occlusion member 56 and opposing end secured to anchor member 72).
Regarding Claim 8, Abu Dayyeh, as modified by Albrecht, teaches the implantable medical device system of claim 7.
The combination further teaches wherein the occlusion device (Abu Dayyeh; figure 10, occlusion member 136) comprises a supporting frame (figure 10, wires 108) and an impermeable membrane (Abu Dayyeh; figure 10, [0015] and [0060] webbing 106 made of latex or silicone that prevent passage of fluid) spanning the supporting frame.
Regarding claim 10, Abu Dayyeh, as modified by Albrecht, teaches the implantable medical device system of claim 8.
The combination does not expressly teach wherein the dynamic leash is adapted to be secured at one end to the impermeable membrane of the occlusion device;
though Abu Dayyeh teaches the dynamic leash is adapted to be secured at the occlusion device (figure 5 and [0050])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abu Dayyeh, as modified by Albrecht, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have secured at one end to the impermeable membrane of the occlusion device as a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to peruse the known options (securing the expandable coil to wires or webbing) within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success (effectively securing connection between the occlusion member and the bypass devices), it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instant case, that the modification involves obvious to try see MPEP2143.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abu Dayyeh (US 20200390580 A1) in view of Albrecht et al (US 20130030350 A1), and in further view of Vidlund et al (US 20140214159 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Abu Dayyeh, as modified by Albrecht, teaches the implantable medical device system of claim 8.
The combination does not expressly teach wherein the dynamic leash is adapted to be secured at one end to the supporting frame of the occlusion device; though
Abu Dayyeh teaches the dynamic leash is adapted to be secured to the occlusion device (figure 5 and [0050]).
In the same field of endeavor, namely a prosthetic valves and related inventions, Vidlund teaches the dynamic leash ([0423-0425] prosthetic valve) is adapted to be secured at one end to the supporting frame of the occlusion device (figure 10 [0423-0425] tethers 138 integrated with the stent body and secured at one end to the frame of the tubular stent 112).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abu Dayyeh, as modified by Albrecht, to incorporate the teachings of Vidlund and provides the dynamic leash as claimed, and one of skill in the art motivated to do so, for the purpose of ensuring the implantable medical device system effectively overcomes continuous stretching and retracting movement of gastric and duodenal peristaltic movement, thereby securely anchoring the device at desired location.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abu Dayyeh (US 20200390580 A1) Albrecht et al (US 20130030350 A1), and in further view of Magal (US 20110040232 A1).
Regarding claim 11. Abu Dayyeh teaches the implantable medical device system of claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the dynamic leash is adapted to be secured at one end to the occlusion device (Abu Dayyeh; figure 5 and [0050] expandable coil 100 is secured at one end of the occlusion member 56)
The combination does not teach wherein the dynamic leash is adapted to be secured at an opposing end to the stomach wall
In the same field of endeavor, namely duodenal liner device, Magal teaches wherein the dynamic leash (figure 3 and [0165], tether is secured to stomach wall through anchor 84) is adapted to be secured to the stomach wall.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abu Dayyeh to incorporate the teachings of Magal and provide the dynamic leash as claimed in order to distribute tensile forces over the wall of the stomach, as taught by Magal ([0165]) and effectively secure the device system in place.
Regarding claim 12. Abu Dayyeh teaches the implantable medical device system of claim 1.
Abu Dayyeh further teaches wherein the dynamic leash is adapted to be secured at one end to the occlusion device (figure 5 and [0050] expandable coil 100 is secured at one end of the occlusion member 56).
Abu Dayyeh does not teach wherein the dynamic leash is adapted to be secured an anti-migration anchor.
In the same field of endeavor, namely duodenal liner device, Magal teaches wherein the dynamic leash is adapted to be secured at an opposing end to an anti-migration anchor (figure 3f and [0165] tether 44 is configured to be secured to subcutaneous anchor 84).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abu Dayyeh to incorporate the teachings of Magal and provide the dynamic leash as claimed in order to distribute tensile forces over the wall of the stomach, as taught by Magal ([0165]) and effectively secure the device system in place.
Claim 13, 14, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abu Dayyeh (US 20200390580 A1) in view of Magal (US 20110040232 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Abu Dayyeh teaches a dynamic leash (figures 2 and 5, and [0065] expandable coil 100 extend within a patient’s stomach connecting occluding device 50 including tubular member 52, and bypass device 70 further illustrated in figure 10, occlusion device 134) adapted for use in a gastric bypass system including an occlusion device and a tether secured to the occlusion device, the dynamic leash adapted to extend within a patient's stomach between an occlusion device adapted to be deployed relative to a patient's pylorus and a securement point (figures 3 and 5, anchor member 72), the dynamic leash comprising:
An elastic member (figure 5, body of expandable coil 100) having a first end adapted to be secured relative to the occlusion device (figure 5, the coil 100 secured at the occlusion member 56) and a second end (figure 5, opposite end secured to the anchor member 72) adapted to be secured to the securement point;
wherein the member dynamically opposes forces placed on the occlusion device by the tether (figure 5 [0050] and [0059] as the tubular member 138 comprising stretchable material, e.g., latex or rubber, the expandable coil provide opposing force the force provided by tether).
Abu Dayyeh does not expressly teach the member being elastic.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abu Dayyeh to provide the elastic member as Abu Dayyeh teaches the tether is formed of an elastic member e.g., latex or rubber, ([0059]) for the purpose of better and easier positioning of the occlusion device while securing the occlusion device to the bypass device, and one of skill in the art motivated to provide the elastic member, for the purpose of facilitating positioning and securing of the occlusion device.
Abu Dayyeh does not teach wherein the securement point comprise a stomach wall of the stomach.
In the same field of endeavor, namely duodenal liner device, Magal teaches wherein the securement point comprises a wall of the patient’s stomach. (figure 3f and [0165], tether is secured to stomach wall through anchor 84)
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abu Dayyeh to incorporate the teachings of Magal and provide the dynamic leash as claimed in order to distribute tensile forces over the wall of the stomach, as taught by Magal ([0165]) and effectively secure the device system in place.
Regarding claim 14, Abu Dayyeh, as modified by Magal, teaches the dynamic leash of claim 13.
The combination further teaches wherein the securement point comprises an anastomosis anchor (Abu Dayyeh; figure 5 and [0050], anchor member 72 ).
Regarding claim 16, Abu Dayyeh, as modified by Magal, teaches the dynamic leash of claim 13.
The combination further teaches wherein the elastic member comprises a spring (the combination as set forth in claim 13 teaches the expandable coil being formed of elastic material, e.g., rubber or latex, which is capable of recover its original shape when released after being distorted and falls under the limitation “spring”).
Regarding claim 19, Abu Dayyeh, as modified by Magal, teaches the dynamic leash of claim 13.
The combination further teaches wherein the elastic member is adapted to resist gastrointestinal system movements that could otherwise cause the occlusion device to move into the patient’s duodenum (Abu Dayyeh; [0050])
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abu Dayyeh (US 20200390580 A1) in view of Magal (US 20110040232 A1), and in further view of Maude-Griffin et al (US 20190021891 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Abu Dayyeh, as modified by Magal, teaches the implantable medical device system of claim 13.
The combination does not teach wherein the elastic member comprises a pneumatic tube.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a device for gastrointestinal bypass, Maude-Griffin teaches a dynamic leash (figure 62, tether 1310) comprising an elastic member, wherein the elastic member comprises a pneumatic tube (figure 8a, elongation element 1330 being hydraulic or gas-filled cylinder 1331).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abu Dayyeh, as modified by Magal, to incorporate the teachings of Maude-Griffin and provide the dynamic leash as claimed for the purpose of reducing tugging sensation and/or tissue damage caused by movement of spring element as taught by Maude ([0113]), and further prevent the spring material damaging from exposure to the acidic gastric environment.
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 SETH HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2545. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0900-1700.
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.
/SETH HAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/PHILIP R WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights