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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species IV in the reply filed on 6/3/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 2, 4, and 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/3/26.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gilmartin et al US Patent 11,266,517B2.
Gilmartin et al discloses an endoprosthesis (see Fig. 8), comprising an elongated tubular member (250) comprising a filament forming circumferential rows (252, 254 and 256) disposed about a central longitudinal axis, the circumferential rows having a plurality of knitted loops (276) and intermediate rungs (see figure below) extending between adjacent knitted loops. Wherein the filament extends continuously from a first end of the elongated tubular member to a second end of the elongated tubular member. Wherein the elongated tubular member includes at least one window (see figure below) formed through a side wall of the elongated tubular member having a size equal to or greater than two knitted loops of the plurality of knitted loops (the window is about 3 times the size of two loops).
PNG
media_image1.png
596
890
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, see window above showing no intermediate rungs.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, col. 5, lines 66-67 and col. 6, lines 1-20 discloses a plurality of anti-migration loops adjacent to at least one window, the anti-migration loops are inherently parallel to the side wall of the tubular member, since, it is inherent to be parallel for the purpose of fitting inside a delivery catheter. Additionally, it is also inherent to be self-biased toward the expanded second position.
Regarding claim 11, see col. 5, lines 11-18 disclosing the polymeric layer.
Regarding claim 12, it is inherent to not having the polymeric covering, since those windows are used to allow blood flow to different parts of the human body.
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.
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.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilmartin et al US Patent 11,266,517B2 in view of McNern et al US Patent Pub. 2021/0236259A1.
Gilmartin et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Gilmartin et al does not disclose the plurality of anti-migration loops extending across the at least one window, a polymeric covering the anti-migration loops and the anti-migration loops having an outer perimeter greater than the outer perimeter of the knitted loops.
McNern et al teaches an implant having knitted loops wherein the anti-migration loops (20) extends across at least one window (see Fig. 4), the anti-migration loops can include a polymeric covering (See paragraph 52) and see Fig. 4 showing the outer perimeter of element (20) are much larger that the knitted loops.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify the Gilmartin et al reference by adding the anti-migration loops around the at least one window to anchor the implant within a human conduit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN J STEWART whose telephone number is (571)272-4760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVIN J STEWART/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 7/22/26
Prosecution Insights