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 .
Examiner’s Note
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on April 23rd, 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new rejection set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/TAN-UYEN T HO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Response to Amendment
Claims filed on September 26th, 2025 have been entered. Claims 11- 19, 22-23, and 25- 32 are pending in the application.
The rejection of claims 11-17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Jordan et al. (WO 2006/081448) and in view of Stys (US 2008/0177370) has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief filed April 23rd, 2026; specifically regarding the combination of Jordan and Stys.
The rejection of claims 18, 22-23, and 25- 32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Jordan et al. (WO 2006/081448) and in view of Stys (US 2008/0177370), in further view of Gunderson et al. (US 2004/0267348) has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief filed April 23rd, 2026; specifically regarding the combination of Jordan and Stys.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The limitation “pusher means” in Claim 32, Line 3, is herein interpreted as a pusher with one or more posts (Paragraph 0005), a pusher with a distal tubular body having a plurality of channels (Paragraph 0006), a pusher with a plurality of wires positioned away from the pusher’s core wire (Paragraph 0008), or any equivalents thereof.
The limitation “engagement means” in Claim 32, Line 3, is herein interpreted as posts on the pusher (Paragraph 0013), elongated block members (Paragraph 0015), channels (Paragraph 0016), retention wire (Paragraph 0021), or any equivalents thereof.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, Line 9 states “stent; and,”, it is suggested to change this to “stent; and”.
Claims 12- 19 are objected to for being dependent on or from objected claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 17, 22-23, and 25- 31 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 17, Line 2 recites the limitation “the stent comprises an angled proximal opening”, it is unclear whether this limitation is intending to be the same as the angled proximal opening established within claim 11, or if this limitation is intending to establish another angled proximal opening. For purposes of prior art comparison, this limitation is herein interpreted as the same angled proximal opening established within claim 11.
Claim 22, Line 9 recites the limitation “each of the pair of wires”, it is unclear whether this limitation is intending to recite multiple pairs of wires, in which there is no antecedent basis established in the claim, or if the limitation is intending to mean “each wire of the pair of wires”. For purposes of prior art comparison, this limitation is interpreted as “each wire of the pair of wires”.
Claims 23, and 25- 31 are rejected for being dependent on rejected claim 22.
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.
Claim(s) 11- 12, 14, and 16- 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Demond et al. (US 2002/0022858).
Regarding claim 11, Demond (Demond et al.) teaches a stent-like medical device (vascular filter 60)(abstract and Paragraphs 0077 and 0078)(Figs. 8A and 8B) comprising: a stent (sac 63)(As a stent is known to be an expandable mesh tube, and the sac is taught by Demond to be a mesh and a tube (see Fig. 8A)(Paragraph 0067) it is considered a stent.) comprising at least one braided wire (Paragraph 0067); and a pair of wires (support hoop 61 and struts 62) coupled to a proximal portion of the stent, wherein the pair of wires define an angled proximal opening of the stent having a leading lower edge, and wherein each of the pair of wires extend proximally from the leading lower edge of the angled proximal opening (see annotated Fig. 8B below); wherein a first end of each wire of the pair of wires is directly attached to the stent (Paragraph 0077); and wherein the pair of wires are connected together to form a substantially V-shaped loop extending proximally from a proximal end of the stent (see annotated Fig. 8A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
357
839
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
390
1096
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Demond teaches the stent- like medical device as discussed above.
Demond further teaches wherein the pair of wires are symmetrical (see annotated Fig. 8A below).
PNG
media_image3.png
319
969
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Demond teaches the stent- like medical device as discussed above.
Demond further teaches wherein a second end of a first wire of the pair of wires is affixed to a second end of a second of the pair of wires to form the substantially V-shaped loop (see annotated Fig. 8A below).
PNG
media_image4.png
319
969
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Demond teaches the stent- like medical device as discussed above.
Demond further teaches wherein the at least one braided wire intersects a proximal portion of the substantially V- shaped loop (Paragraphs 0077 and 0078)( see annotated Fig. 8A below).
PNG
media_image5.png
338
969
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Demond teaches the stent- like medical device as discussed above.
Demond further teaches wherein the stent comprises an angled proximal opening, and wherein the pair of wires are each attached on either side of the angled proximal opening (see annotated Fig. 8A below)(Paragraph 0077).
PNG
media_image6.png
319
969
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 13, 15, and 18- 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demond et al. (US 2002/0022858).
Regarding claim 13, Demond teaches the stent- like medical device as discussed above.
Desmond teaches the stent and the pair of wires coupled to the proximal portion of the stent (Paragraphs 0067 and 0077).
Demond does not expressly disclose wherein an underside of each of the pair of wires is welded directly to the proximal end of the stent.
However, Demond teaches that the relevant components may be attached using known attachment techniques, including welding (Paragraph 0059). Demond also teaches that the support hoop and/or struts are attached to the proximal portion of the stent (Paragraph 0077).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the connection of the pair of wires to the proximal end of the stent to have the underside of each of the pair of wires be welded directly to the proximal end of the stent. Welding is a known attachment technique for joining medical- device components, and Demond expressly identifies welding as a suitable attachment method. Thus, choosing to attach the pair of wires to the stent through welding and welding the underside of each of the pair of wires would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp” and one of ordinary skill has a limited amount of options when attaching the wires and the stent and when welding the wires and the braided wires. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 15, Demond teaches the stent- like medical device as discussed above.
Demond does not teach wherein a first end of each of the pair of wires is welded to the at least one braided wire of the stent.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the connection of the pair of wires to the proximal end of the stent to have the underside of each of the pair of wires be welded directly to the proximal end of the stent since Demond teaches a known type of attachment is welding (Paragraph 0059) and that the wires are attached to the proximal end of the stent (Paragraph 0077). Thus, choosing to attach the pair of wires to the stent through welding would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp” and one of ordinary skill has a limited amount of options when attaching the wires and the stent. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 18, Demond teaches the stent- like medical device as discussed above.
Demond does not teach in the current embodiment wherein each of the pair of wires comprise a larger diameter than the at least one braided wire.
Demond teaches in a separate embodiment a stent-like medical device (vascular filter 20)(abstract and Paragraphs 0054)(Figs. 3- 7) comprising: a stent (sac 23)(As a stent is known to be an expandable mesh tube, and the sac is taught by Demond to be a mesh and a tube (see Fig. 5)(Paragraph 0067) it is considered a stent.) comprising at least one braided wire (Paragraph 0067); and a pair of wires (support hoop 21) coupled to a proximal portion of the stent (Paragraphs 0054 and 0055), wherein each of the pair of wires comprise a larger diameter than the at least one braided wire (see annotated Fig. 4C below)(As Demond teaches in Paragraph 0062 that the stent (sac 23) is formed from a thin material, and that the pair of wires (support hoop 21) is formed from nitinol wire with a specific gauge (Paragraph 0071), then when compared together the pair of wires would comprise a larger diameter than the at least one braided wire.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the diameter of the pair of wires as taught by the first embodiment of Demond to have a larger diameter than the at least one braided wire as taught by the second embodiment of Demond, since Demond teaches that this is a known detail of construction for a pair of wires connected to a sac within the art (Paragraphs 0059, 0071, and 0077).
Regarding claim 19, Demond teaches the stent- like medical device as discussed above.
Demond does not teach wherein the at least one braided wire is welded to an underside of each of the pair of wires.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the connection of the pair of wires to the proximal end of the stent to have the underside of each of the pair of wires be welded directly to the proximal end of the stent since Demond teaches a known type of attachment is welding (Paragraph 0059) and that the wires are attached to the proximal end of the stent (Paragraph 0077). Thus, choosing to attach the pair of wires to the stent through welding and welding the underside of each of the pair of wires would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp” and one of ordinary skill has a limited amount of options when attaching the wires and the stent and when welding the wires and the braided wires. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 22-23 and 25-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demond et al. (US 2002/0022858) in view of Gunderson et al. (US 2004/0267348).
Regarding claim 22, Demond (Demond et al.) teaches a stent engagement system (vascular filter 60, stop 68, guidewire 70, nose cone 67) comprising: a stent-like medical device (vascular filter 60)(abstract and Paragraphs 0077 and 0078)(Figs. 8A and 8B) comprising: a stent (sac 63)(As a stent is known to be an expandable mesh tube, and the sac is taught by Demond to be a mesh and a tube (see Fig. 8A)(Paragraph 0067) it is considered a stent.) comprising at least one braided wire (Paragraph 0067); and a pair of wires (support hoop 61 and struts 62) coupled to a proximal portion of the stent, wherein the pair of wires define an angled proximal opening of the stent having a leading lower edge, and wherein each of the pair of wires extend proximally from the leading lower edge of the angled proximal opening (see annotated Fig. 8B below); wherein a first end of each wire of the pair of wires is directly attached to the stent (Paragraph 0077); and wherein the pair of wires are connected together to form a substantially V-shaped loop extending proximally from a proximal end of the stent (see annotated Fig. 8A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
357
839
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
390
1096
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Demond does not teach a pusher including an engagement mechanism, wherein, in a delivery configuration, the substantially V-shaped loop of the stent is engaged with the engagement mechanism of the pusher.
Gunderson (Gunderson et al.) teaches a stent engagement system (abstract)(Figs. 8A- 8C) comprising: a pusher (bumper 650) including an engagement mechanism (bumper retainer 652), a stent (656), and two paddles (672) attached to a proximal portion of the stent (Paragraph 0057), wherein in a delivery configuration, the pair of wires is engaged with the engagement mechanism of the pusher (Paragraph 0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the stent engagement system of Demond to have a pusher with an engagement mechanism as taught by Gunderson, since Gunderson teaches that the bumper can be used to deliver a device within the vasculature and that it can be used with an open cell of a stent (Paragraph 0072) and therefore can deliver a device with a loop on the end, like the one taught by Demond.
Regarding claim 23, Demond and Gunderson make obvious the stent engagement system as discussed above.
The combination further teaches wherein the engagement mechanism comprises at least one post (bumper retainer 652)(Paragraph 0057) protruding from the pusher (see annotated Fig. 8B below).
PNG
media_image7.png
924
848
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Demond and Gunderson make obvious the stent engagement system as discussed above.
The combination further teaches wherein the engagement mechanism comprises a retention block (see annotated Fig. 8B below).
PNG
media_image8.png
924
848
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Demond and Gunderson make obvious the stent engagement system as discussed above.
The combination further teaches wherein the retention block has an axially elongated rectangular shape (see annotated Fig. 8B below).
PNG
media_image9.png
924
848
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The combination does not teach wherein the retention block comprises a plurality of axially elongated rectangular shapes.
Gunderson teaches in an alternate embodiment a bumper, which is considered a retention block due to the fact that it retains a stent, comprising a plurality of bumper retainers (Paragraph 0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the retention block of the combination to have a plurality of the axially elongated rectangular shape, since Gunderson teaches that having a plurality of the shapes increases the retention of an endoprosthesis and increases the accuracy of positioning (Paragraph 0054).
Regarding claims 27 and 28, Demond and Gunderson make obvious the stent engagement system as discussed above.
The combination further teaches wherein the engagement mechanism comprises a tubular body fixed to a distal end of the pusher (see annotated Fig. 8B below) with a finger portion (652) that is bendable (Paragraph 0057).
PNG
media_image10.png
924
848
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The combination does not teach wherein the tubular body comprises a plurality of finger portions.
Gunderson teaches in an alternate embodiment a bumper, which is considered a retention block due to the fact that it retains a stent, comprising a plurality of bumper retainers (Paragraph 0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tubular body of the combination to have a plurality of finger portions, since Gunderson teaches that having a plurality of the shapes increases the retention of an endoprosthesis and increases the accuracy of positioning (Paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 29, Demond and Gunderson make obvious the stent engagement system as discussed above.
Demond does not teach in the current embodiment wherein each of the pair of wires comprise a larger diameter than the at least one braided wire.
Demond teaches in a separate embodiment a stent-like medical device (vascular filter 20)(abstract and Paragraphs 0054)(Figs. 3- 7) comprising: a stent (sac 23)(As a stent is known to be an expandable mesh tube, and the sac is taught by Demond to be a mesh and a tube (see Fig. 5)(Paragraph 0067) it is considered a stent.) comprising at least one braided wire (Paragraph 0067); and a pair of wires (support hoop 21) coupled to a proximal portion of the stent (Paragraphs 0054 and 0055), wherein each of the pair of wires comprise a larger diameter than the at least one braided wire (see annotated Fig. 4C below)(As Demond teaches in Paragraph 0062 that the stent (sac 23) is formed from a thin material, and that the pair of wires (support hoop 21) is formed from nitinol wire with a specific gauge (Paragraph 0071), then when compared together the pair of wires would comprise a larger diameter than the at least one braided wire.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the diameter of the pair of wires as taught by the first embodiment of Demond to have a larger diameter than the at least one braided wire as taught by the second embodiment of Demond, since Demond teaches that this is a known detail of construction for a pair of wires connected to a sac within the art (Paragraphs 0059, 0071, and 0077).
Regarding claim 30, Demond and Gunderson make obvious the stent engagement system as discussed above.
Demond further teaches wherein the first end of each of the pair of wires is affixed to an end wire of the at least one braided wire of the stent (see Fig. 8B)(Paragraphs 0077 and 0078).
Regarding claim 31, Demond and Gunderson make obvious the stent engagement system as discussed above.
The combination does not teach wherein the at least one braided wire is welded to an underside of each of the pair of wires.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the connection of the pair of wires to the proximal end of the stent to have the underside of each of the pair of wires be welded directly to the proximal end of the stent since Demond teaches a known type of attachment is welding (Paragraph 0059) and that the wires are attached to the proximal end of the stent (Paragraph 0077). Thus, choosing to attach the pair of wires to the stent through welding and welding the underside of each of the pair of wires would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp” and one of ordinary skill has a limited amount of options when attaching the wires and the stent and when welding the wires and the braided wires. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 32, Demond (Demond et al.) teaches a stent engagement system (vascular filter 60, stop 68, guidewire 70, nose cone 67) comprising: a stent means(sac 63)(As a stent is known to be an expandable mesh tube, and the sac is taught by Demond to be a mesh and a tube (see Fig. 8A)(Paragraph 0067) it is considered a stent.) for opening a blood vessel (abstract, filtering emboli from a blood vessel removes debris that previously blocked the blood vessel, thereby opening it.) including at least one braided wire (Paragraph 0067), wherein the stent means comprises an angled proximal opening having an upper edge and a lower edge, wherein the lower edge of the angled proximal opening is proximal to the upper edge of the angled proximal opening (see annotated Fig. 8B below); and a pair of wires (support hoop 61 and struts 62) coupled to a proximal portion of the stent, wherein the pair of wires define an angled proximal opening of the stent having a leading lower edge, and wherein each of the pair of wires extend proximally from the leading lower edge of the angled proximal opening (see annotated Fig. 8B below); wherein a first end of each wire of the pair of wires is directly attached to the stent (Paragraph 0077); and wherein the pair of wires are connected together to form a substantially V-shaped loop extending proximally from a proximal end of the stent (see annotated Fig. 8A below).
PNG
media_image11.png
341
971
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
357
839
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
390
1096
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Demond does not teach a pusher including an engagement mechanism, wherein, in a delivery configuration, the substantially V-shaped loop of the stent is engaged with the engagement mechanism of the pusher.
Gunderson (Gunderson et al.) teaches a stent engagement system (abstract)(Figs. 8A- 8C) comprising: a pusher (bumper 650) including an engagement mechanism (bumper retainer 652), a stent (656), and two paddles (672) attached to a proximal portion of the stent (Paragraph 0057), wherein in a delivery configuration, the pair of wires is engaged with the engagement mechanism of the pusher (Paragraph 0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the stent engagement system of Demond to have a pusher with an engagement mechanism as taught by Gunderson, since Gunderson teaches that the bumper can be used to deliver a device within the vasculature and that it can be used with an open cell of a stent (Paragraph 0072) and therefore can deliver a device with a loop on the end, like the one taught by Demond.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 4- 19, filed April 23rd, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 11-17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Jordan et al. (WO 2006/081448) and in view of Stys (US 2008/0177370), the rejection of claims 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Jordan et al. (WO 2006/081448) and in view of Stys (US 2008/0177370), in further view of Gunderson et al. (US 2004/0267348), and the rejection of claims 22-23 and 25- 32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Jordan et al. (WO 2006/081448) and in view of Stys (US 2008/0177370), in further view of Gunderson et al. (US 2004/0267348) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of these claims have been withdrawn. It is noted that Gunderson is still relied upon for limitations not argued.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY R. RIVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at (571) 272- 4696. 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.
/L.R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3771 /TAN-UYEN T HO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights