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 .
In light of the amendments filed 12/15/2025 in which claims 1, 3, 5, 10-11, 16, 19, and 20 were amended, claims 2, 14-15, and 17-18 were cancelled, and claims 21-25 were added, claims 1, 3-13, 16, and 19-25 are pending in the instant application and are examined on the merits herein.
Priority
The instant application claims priority to U.S. Provisional App. no. 63/393,516 filed on 07/29/2022.
Claims 1, 3-13, 16, and 19-25 receive priority to the prior-filed application, filed on 07/29/2022.
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Claims
The objections to the claims are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims filed 12/15/2025.
Rejections of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or wherein the claim amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant asserts on pg. 6-7 that the prior art to Pung fails to disclose the newly added limitations.
In response to the applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully notes that Pung was not used in the previous Office Action filed 09/16/2025 to read on the newly added limitations.
The amendments to the claim have necessitated a new grounds of rejection in view of Gill as explained below.
Regarding claim 16, the applicant asserts on pg. 7-8 that the prior art to Pung and Folan fail to disclose the newly added limitations.
In response to the applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully notes that Pung and Folan were not used in the previous Office Action filed 09/16/2025 to read on the newly added limitations.
The amendments to the claim have necessitated a new grounds of rejection in view of Gill and Folan as explained below.
Regarding claim 19, the applicant asserts on pg. 7 that the prior art to Pung fails to disclose the newly added limitations.
In response to the applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully notes that Pung was not used in the previous Office Action filed 09/16/2025 to read on the newly added limitations. Further, the applicant asserts that claim 19 of Pung is amended in a similar manner to claim 1; however, this is an inaccurate statement. Claim 19 still requires that the anti-migration features are formed by a plurality of wires arranged in a closed loop, while claim 1 requires that the anti-migration features are formed from one of the interwoven wires of the tubular body.
The amendments to the claim have necessitated new grounds of rejection in view of Pung and Folan as explained below.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the cross over point located at the outer surface of the tubular body wherein the two of the plurality of wires are welded together at the cross-over point” in ln. 13-14. This should read “the cross over point located at the outer surface of the tubular body, wherein the two of the plurality of wires are welded together at the cross-over point”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no suggestion in the specification that the closed loop can be formed from one of the interwoven wires, wherein a first end of the closed loop forms a base defined by the one of the interwoven wires crossing over itself to form a cross-over point and can be formed by a plurality of the interwoven wires (Fig. 1A-1C showing closed loops formed from a plurality of the interwoven wires; Fig. 9A-11B showing closed loops formed from one of the interwoven wires).
Claim 13 is rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
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 12-13 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 12 recites the limitation “wherein each closed loop is formed by a plurality of the interwoven wires, wherein terminal ends of the plurality of interwoven wires are welded around a periphery of the closed loop” in ln. 1-3. This limitation is indefinite in that it is unclear how the closed loops may be formed from one of the interwoven wires as required in claim 1 and by a plurality of the interwoven wires as required by claim 12.
Claim 13 is rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
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 (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 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
464
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ex. Fig. 1 of Gill Fig. 6
PNG
media_image2.png
719
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ex. Fig. 2 of Gill Fig. 5B
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US/2014/0277573 A1 to Gill.
Regarding claim 1, Gill discloses a stent (Fig. 1, stent 100) comprising:
a tubular body formed of interwoven wires, the tubular body having a first open end, an opposing second open end, and a central longitudinal axis extending therebetween, the tubular body moveable between a radially compressed state and a radially expanded state (Fig. 1, stent 100 comprised of tubular structure 110 formed of interwoven strands 112, tubular structure 110 having opposing ends 102 and 104 and central longitudinal axis AL; Fig. 5B, alternative proximal end 102b; para. 0027-0028); and
a plurality of anti-migration features each having a first end positioned at an outer surface of the tubular body and a second end extending radially outward from the outer surface of the tubular body (Ex. Fig. 1, anti-migration features 602);
wherein each of the plurality of anti-migration features is defined by a closed loop formed from one of the interwoven wires, wherein a first end of each closed loop forms a base defined by the one of the interwoven wires crossing over itself to form a cross-over point, the cross-over point located at the outer surface of the tubular body (Ex. Fig. 2; para. 0060, loops 502b illustrated as free ends of strands 112 coupled together and/or turned through a full turn; para. 0062-0065, anti-migration features 602 may be similar in design to the loops 502b illustrated in Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art discloses the invention of claim 1. Gill further discloses wherein a first portion of the plurality of anti-migration features is coupled to a medial region of the tubular body and extend towards the first open end at an acute angle, and a second portion of the plurality of anti-migration features is coupled to the medial region of the tubular body and extend towards the second open end at an acute angle (Ex. Fig. 1; para. 0060; para. 0062-0065, anti-migration features 602 disposed in a distally oriented direction and some or all of the anti-migration features 602 disposed in a proximally oriented direction; para. 0083; Claims 12 and 20, anti-migration feature formed in a middle zone of the tubular structure 110).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
PNG
media_image3.png
686
520
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ex. Fig. 3 of Folan Fig. 7
Claims 3-4, 16, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill as applied above, and further in view of US/2019/0117370 A1 to Folan.
Regarding claims 3-4, the cited prior art discloses the invention of claim 1; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose (Claim 3) wherein a segment of the one of the interwoven wires and a second segment of the one of the interwoven wires are welded together at the cross-over point, and (Claim 4) wherein any pulling or squeezing force applied to any of the plurality of anti-migration features does not reduce an outer diameter of the tubular body or axially lengthen or shorten the tubular body.
Folan teaches a stent comprising radially extending features defined by closed loops, wherein a base of the closed loop includes a welded cross-over point of the interwoven wires forming the closed loop (Ex. Fig. 3; para. 0055, stabilizing may include welding one or more wire cross-over points on the inner surface of the tubular body or welding one or more of the last wire cross-over points at the end of the tubular body where the wire forming the anti-migration element exits the tubular body; para. 0062, the anti-migration elements may be formed from wires forming the tubular body or from wires attached to the tubular body, the anti-migration elements are configured such that applying a pulling or squeezing force on the anti-migration elements does not reduce the outer diameter of the tubular body), and
wherein any pulling or squeezing force applied to any of the plurality of anti-migration features does not reduce an outer diameter of the tubular body or axially lengthen or shorten the tubular body (Ex. Fig. 3; para. 0055, stabilizing may include welding one or more wire cross-over points on the inner surface of the tubular body or welding one or more of the last wire cross-over points at the end of the tubular body where the wire forming the anti-migration element exits the tubular body; para. 0062, the anti-migration elements may be formed from wires forming the tubular body or from wires attached to the tubular body, the anti-migration elements are configured such that applying a pulling or squeezing force on the anti-migration elements does not reduce the outer diameter of the tubular body).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the cross-over point of the cited prior art to be welded as taught by Folan, because Folan teaches that this stabilizes the closed loops such that applying a pulling or squeezing force on the closed loops does not reduce the outer diameter of the tubular body (para. 0055; para. 0062), which would help to avoid accidental release or movement of the stent when the closed loops press against a body wall.
Regarding claim 16, Gill discloses a stent (Fig. 1, stent 100) comprising:
a tubular body formed of interwoven wires, the tubular body having a first open end, an opposing second open end, and a central longitudinal axis extending therebetween, the tubular body moveable between a radially compressed state and a radially expanded state (Fig. 1, stent 100 comprised of tubular structure 110 formed of interwoven strands 112, tubular structure 110 having opposing ends 102 and 104 and central longitudinal axis AL; para. 0027-0028); and
a plurality of anti-migration features each defining a closed loop formed by one of the interwoven wires forming the tubular body, each closed loop having a first end at an outer surface of the tubular body, the first end formed by a cross-over point of the one of the interwoven wires forming the closed loop, and a second end of each closed loop extending radially outward from the outer surface of the tubular body (Ex. Fig. 1, anti-migration features 602; Ex. Fig. 2; para. 0060, free ends of strands 112 coupled together and/or turned through a full turn/loop 502b; para. 0062-0065, anti-migration features 602 may be similar in design to the loops 502b illustrated in Fig. 5B).
Gill differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Gill fails to disclose wherein the first end is formed by a weld at a cross-over point of the one of the interwoven wires forming the closed loop.
Folan teaches a stent comprising radially extending features defined by closed loops, wherein a base of the closed loop includes a welded cross-over point of the interwoven wires forming the closed loop (Ex. Fig. 3; para. 0055, stabilizing may include welding one or more wire cross-over points on the inner surface of the tubular body or welding one or more of the last wire cross-over points at the end of the tubular body where the wire forming the anti-migration element exits the tubular body; para. 0062, the anti-migration elements may be formed from wires forming the tubular body or from wires attached to the tubular body, the anti-migration elements are configured such that applying a pulling or squeezing force on the anti-migration elements does not reduce the outer diameter of the tubular body), and
wherein any pulling or squeezing force applied to any of the plurality of anti-migration features does not reduce an outer diameter of the tubular body or axially lengthen or shorten the tubular body (Ex. Fig. 3; para. 0055, stabilizing may include welding one or more wire cross-over points on the inner surface of the tubular body or welding one or more of the last wire cross-over points at the end of the tubular body where the wire forming the anti-migration element exits the tubular body; para. 0062, the anti-migration elements may be formed from wires forming the tubular body or from wires attached to the tubular body, the anti-migration elements are configured such that applying a pulling or squeezing force on the anti-migration elements does not reduce the outer diameter of the tubular body).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the cross-over point of the cited prior art to be welded as taught by Folan, because Folan teaches that this stabilizes the closed loops such that applying a pulling or squeezing force on the closed loops does not reduce the outer diameter of the tubular body (para. 0055; para. 0062), which would help to avoid accidental release or movement of the stent when the closed loops press against a body wall.
Regarding claim 23, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 16. Gill further discloses wherein the plurality of anti-migration features are coupled to a medial region of the tubular body and extend towards the first open end at an acute angle (Ex. Fig. 1; para. 0060; para. 0062-0065, anti-migration features 602 disposed in a distally oriented direction and some or all of the anti-migration features 602 disposed in a proximally oriented direction; para. 0083; Claims 12 and 20, anti-migration feature formed in a middle zone of the tubular structure 110).
Regarding claim 24, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 16. Gill further discloses wherein the plurality of anti-migration features are coupled to a medial region of the tubular body and extend towards the second open end at an acute angle (Ex. Fig. 1; para. 0060; para. 0062-0065, anti-migration features 602 disposed in a distally oriented direction and some or all of the anti-migration features 602 disposed in a proximally oriented direction; para. 0083; Claims 12 and 20, anti-migration feature formed in a middle zone of the tubular structure 110).
Regarding claim 25, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 16. Gill further discloses wherein a first portion of the plurality of anti-migration features is coupled to a medial region of the tubular body and extend towards the first open end at an acute angle, and a second portion of the plurality of anti-migration features is coupled to the medial region of the tubular body and extend towards the second open end at an acute angle (Ex. Fig. 1; para. 0060; para. 0062-0065, anti-migration features 602 disposed in a distally oriented direction and some or all of the anti-migration features 602 disposed in a proximally oriented direction; para. 0083; Claims 12 and 20, anti-migration feature formed in a middle zone of the tubular structure 110).
Claims 5-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill as applied above.
Regarding claims 5-6, the cited prior art discloses the invention of claim 1. Gill further discloses (Claim 5) wherein a first portion of the plurality of anti-migration features extend towards the second open end at an acute angle relative to the outer surface of the tubular body and (Claim 6) a second portion of the plurality of anti-migration features extend towards the second open end at an acute angle relative to the outer surface of the tubular body (Ex. Fig. 1; para. 0060; para. 0062-0065, anti-migration features 602 disposed in a distally oriented direction and some or all of the anti-migration features 602 disposed in a proximally oriented direction; para. 0083; Claims 12 and 20, anti-migration feature formed in a middle zone of the tubular structure 110).
The prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose (Claim 5) wherein a first portion of the anti-migration features are coupled to the tubular body adjacent the first open end and (Claim 6) wherein a second portion of the anti-migration features are coupled to the tubular body adjacent the second open end.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the position of the first and second portions of the anti-migration features such that they are positioned at either of the first or second open end as this position does not change the anti-migration features ability to contact and hold the stent in place within the body. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the position of the anti-migration features disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the position of a claimed element and altering the position of that claimed element would not have modified the operation of the device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device because it merely involved the rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art discloses the invention of claim 7; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the base of each anti-migration feature of the first and second portions are circumferentially spaced apart at a single longitudinal location along the tubular body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the position of the first and second portions of the anti-migration features such that they are positioned circumferentially spaced apart at a single longitudinal location along the tubular body as this position does not change the anti-migration features ability to contact and hold the stent in place within the body. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the position of the anti-migration features disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the position of a claimed element and altering the position of that claimed element would not have modified the operation of the device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device because it merely involved the rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claims 9-11, the cited prior art discloses the invention of claim 1. Gill further discloses (Claim 9) wherein the closed loops defining the plurality of anti-migration features extend radially outward from the tubular body (Ex. Fig. 2; para. 0060, loops 502b illustrated as free ends of strands 112 coupled together and/or turned through a full turn; para. 0062-0065, anti-migration features 602 may be similar in design to the loops 502b illustrated in Fig. 5B), (Claim 10) a plurality of elongate closed loops at the first open end that extend substantially parallel to the central longitudinal axis (Fig. 1, stent 100 comprised of tubular structure 110 formed of interwoven strands 112, tubular structure 110 having opposing ends 102 and 104 and central longitudinal axis AL; Fig. 5B, alternative proximal end 102b showing a plurality of elongate closed loops 502b that extend substantially parallel to the central longitudinal axis AL), and (Claim 11) wherein the plurality of elongate closed loops is interposed between ones of the closed loops defining the plurality of anti-migration features (Fig. 6 showing anti-migration features 602 created between cross-over points of strands 112; Fig. 5B showing elongate closed loops 502b created at and along cross-over points of strands 112; anti-migration features 602 would be considered to be between elongate closed loops 502b).
The prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose (Claim 9) wherein the closed loops defining the plurality of anti-migration features are located at the first open end, and (Claim 11) wherein the plurality of elongate closed loops is interposed between adjacent ones of the closed loops defining the plurality of anti-migration features.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the position of the anti-migration features such that they are positioned at the first open end and individually interposed between the plurality of elongate closed loops as this position does not change the anti-migration features ability to contact and hold the stent in place within the body. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the position of the anti-migration features or the elongate closed loops disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the position of a claimed element and altering the position of that claimed element would not have modified the operation of the device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device because it merely involved the rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
PNG
media_image4.png
435
610
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ex. Fig. 4 of Pung Fig. 1
PNG
media_image5.png
539
496
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Ex. Fig. 5 of Pung Fig. 3
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US/2020/0330249 A1 to Pung in view of US/2019/0117370 A1 to Folan.
Regarding claim 19, Pung discloses a stent (Fig. 1, stent 100) comprising:
a radially expandable tubular body formed of interwoven wires (Ex. Fig. 4; para. 0032-0037; para. 0039), the tubular body having a first open end (Ex. Fig. 4), an opposing second open end (Ex. Fig. 4), and a central longitudinal axis extending therebetween (Ex. Fig. 4), the tubular body moveable between a radially compressed state and a radially expanded state (para. 0039); and
a plurality of anti-migration features located at the first open end (Fig. 1, anti-migration features 104/107; Ex. Fig. 4-2; para. 0035) each of the plurality of anti-migration features having a first end positioned at an outer surface of the tubular body and a second end extending radially outward from the outer surface of the tubular body (Ex. Fig. 4-2, anti-migration features 104/107 comprising first ends at an outer surface of the tubular body and second ends extending radially outward from the outer surface of the tubular body);
wherein each of the plurality of anti-migration features is formed by a plurality of wires of the interwoven wires arranged in a closed loop (Ex. Fig. 5 showing anti-migration features 104/107 as closed loops made from 4 wires with a base of the closed loop located at the outer surface of the tubular body) with terminal ends of the plurality of wires arranged around a periphery of the closed loop (Ex. Fig. 5 showing welding 108 of terminal ends of 2 of the interwoven wires around a periphery of the closed loop; para. 0033-0037),
wherein a first end of each closed loop is defined by a cross-over point in which two of the plurality of wires that form the closed loop cross one another, the cross-over point located at the outer surface of the tubular body (Ex. Fig. 5 showing anti-migration features 104/107 comprising a first end defined by a cross-over point at the outer surface of the tubular body in which two of the wires that form the closed loop cross one another).
The cited prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the two of the plurality of wires are welded together at the cross-over point.
Folan teaches a stent comprising radially extending features defined by closed loops, wherein a base of the closed loop includes a welded cross-over point of the interwoven wires forming the closed loop (Ex. Fig. 3; para. 0055, stabilizing may include welding one or more wire cross-over points on the inner surface of the tubular body or welding one or more of the last wire cross-over points at the end of the tubular body where the wire forming the anti-migration element exits the tubular body; para. 0062, the anti-migration elements may be formed from wires forming the tubular body or from wires attached to the tubular body, the anti-migration elements are configured such that applying a pulling or squeezing force on the anti-migration elements does not reduce the outer diameter of the tubular body), and
wherein any pulling or squeezing force applied to any of the plurality of anti-migration features does not reduce an outer diameter of the tubular body or axially lengthen or shorten the tubular body (Ex. Fig. 3; para. 0055, stabilizing may include welding one or more wire cross-over points on the inner surface of the tubular body or welding one or more of the last wire cross-over points at the end of the tubular body where the wire forming the anti-migration element exits the tubular body; para. 0062, the anti-migration elements may be formed from wires forming the tubular body or from wires attached to the tubular body, the anti-migration elements are configured such that applying a pulling or squeezing force on the anti-migration elements does not reduce the outer diameter of the tubular body).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the cross-over point of the cited prior art to be welded as taught by Folan, because Folan teaches that this stabilizes the closed loops such that applying a pulling or squeezing force on the closed loops does not reduce the outer diameter of the tubular body (para. 0055; para. 0062), which would help to avoid accidental release or movement of the stent when the closed loops press against a body wall.
Regarding claim 20, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 19. Pung further discloses wherein the terminal ends of the plurality of wires are welded around the periphery of the closed loop (Ex. Fig. 5 showing welding 108 of terminal ends of 2 of the interwoven wires around a periphery of the closed loop; para. 0033-0037).
Regarding claim 21, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 19. Pung further discloses a plurality of elongate closed loops at the first open end that extend substantially parallel to the central longitudinal axis (Ex. Fig. 4, elongated closed loops considered closed loops of the inner tubular body that extend parallel to the central longitudinal axis).
Regarding claim 22, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 22. Pung further discloses wherein the plurality of elongate closed loops is interposed between adjacent ones of the closed loops defining the plurality of anti-migration features (Ex. Fig. 4, elongated closed loops extending around the entirety of the first end considered to extend between anti-migration features 104/107 on the first end and between anti-migration features 104/107 located on the first and second ends).
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 Linnae Raymond whose telephone number is (571)272-6894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am to 4:00pm.
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.
/Linnae E. Raymond/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/PHILIP R WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781