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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 06/11/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 32, and 57 have been amended, claims 31, 34, and 37-39 have been cancelled and claims 2-4, 6-10, 13-30, 40-41, 42-56, and 66-67 remain withdrawn. Thus, claims 1-30, 32-33, 35-36, and 40-67 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 17-20, filed 06/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 57 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arthur et al (US 20230346382 A1), herein referenced to as “Arthur” in view of Pecor et al (US 20240050099 A1), herein referenced to as “Pecor” have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The applicant amended claim 1 to further recite “and the flexible filler layer comprises a plurality of radially arranged sections extending outward from a geometrical center of the flexible filler layer, each of the plurality of sections having a substantially similar shape, the plurality of sections being configured to facilitate folding of the flexible filler layer”.
The applicant amended claim 57 to further recite “flexible filler layer comprising a plurality of radially arranged sections extending outward from a geometrical center of the flexible filler layer, each of the plurality of sections having a substantially similar shape, the plurality of sections being configured to facilitate folding of the flexible filler layer”.
The examiner agrees that the Arthur in view of Pecor does not explicitly teach the claimed limitation including the plurality of radially arranged sections extending outward from a geometrical center of the flexible filler layer.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Arthur in view of Pecor and Lorenzo et al (US 20190223878 A1).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 32-33, 35, 36, and 57-65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arthur et al (US 20230346382 A1), herein referenced to as “Arthur” in view of Pecor et al (US 20240050099 A1), herein referenced to as “Pecor” and Lorenzo et al (US 20190223878 A1), herein referenced to as “Lorenzo”.
Claim 1
Arthur discloses: An occlusion device 1702 (see Figs. 17A-17B, [0555]-[0559]), comprising: a braided mesh body 1716 + 1738 (see Figs. 17A-17B, [0558] and [0016], support includes mesh) comprising plural strands (see [0309], wire mesh, hence a mesh with plurality of strands), each strand having a first end portion 1760 (see Fig. 17B, [0558], the first portion connect at 1770, [0509]) and a second end portion 1784 (see Fig. 17B, the second end portion connect at 1766), the plural strands wire mesh/plurality of strands folding over to bring the second end portions of the plural strands adjacent to the first end portions of the plural strands (see Fig. 17B, the mesh is folded to form a double-layer of the mesh body with the first 1760 and second ends 1784 being adjacent to one another), forming a double-layer (see Fig. 17B, [0012], double-layer) of the braided mesh body 1716 + 1738; and at least one pinch member 1770 + 1766 (see Fig. 17B, [0509] and [0528]) clamping the first end portions 1760 and the second end portions 1784 of the plural strands wire mesh/plurality of strands, wherein at least one of the plural strands wire mesh/plurality of strands is radiopaque (see [0325], mesh of the device itself includes radiopaque material); and the at least one pinch member 1770 is non-radiopaque (see [0578], non-radiopaque material).
Arthur does not explicitly disclose: a flexible filler layer between the double-layer of the braided mesh body and the flexible filler layer comprises a plurality of radially arranged sections extending outward from a geometrical center of the flexible filler layer, each of the plurality of sections having a substantially similar shape, the plurality of sections being configured to facilitate folding of the flexible filler layer.
However, Pecor in a similar field of invention teaches an occlusion device 2500 (see Fig. 19-20B) with a braided mesh body 2502 (see Fig. 20) with a double layer (see Figs. 19-20B, [0139] and [0143], first and the second portion of the mesh, two portions of the wall of the mesh) and a pinch member 2504 (see Fig. 20B). Pecor further teaches: a flexible filler layer 2516 (see Fig. 19-20B, [0139] and [0140], the membrane from 20A-20B, can be comprise membrane as described in Figs. 19-20B, comprises PTFE, which is a flexible material, per applicant’s own patent application publication [0128], constructed from a flexible polymer such as PTFE ) between the double-layer (see [0139], sandwiched, [0143], positioned therebetween) of the braided mesh body 2502.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arthur to incorporate the teachings of Pecor and teach an occlusion device with a flexible filler layer between the double-layer of the braided mesh body. Motivation for such can be found in Pecor as this membrane can assist in fluid impermeability of the device (see [0139]) while still having a cavity that can receive an embolic composition therethrough (see [0141].
The combination of Arthur and Pecor does not explicitly teach: and the flexible filler layer comprises a plurality of radially arranged sections extending outward from a geometrical center of the flexible filler layer, each of the plurality of sections having a substantially similar shape, the plurality of sections being configured to facilitate folding of the flexible filler layer.
However, Lorenzo in a similar field of invention teaches an occlusion device 10 (see Figs. 1A-2B) with a braided mesh body 12 + 13 (see Figs. 1A-2B) with a flexible filler layer 7 + 9 (see Figs 1A-2B) and at least one pinch member 54 (see Figs. 2A-2B). Lorenzo further teaches: and the flexible filler layer 7 + 9 comprises a plurality of radially arranged sections 7 (see Figs. 2A-2B, [0058]) extending outward from a geometrical center 5 (see Figs. 2A-2B, [0058] and [0070]) of the flexible filler layer 7 + 9, each of the plurality of sections 7 having a substantially similar shape (see Figs. 2A-2B, [0058] and [0070]-[0071]), the plurality of sections 7 being configured to facilitate folding (see [0070], include potential energy stored in the collapsed state, to assist with expansion) of the flexible filler layer 7.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flexible filler layer of Arthur and Pecor to incorporate the teachings of Lorenzo and teach an occlusion device with the flexible filler layer comprises a plurality of radially arranged sections extending outward from a geometrical center of the flexible filler layer, each of the plurality of sections having a substantially similar shape, the plurality of sections being configured to facilitate folding of the flexible filler layer. Motivation for such can be found in Lorenzo as the shape and arrangement of the flexible filler layer can facilitate the expansion of the braided mesh body for deployment of the device (see [0058]) by storing potential energy (see [0068] and [0070]-[0071]).
Claim 5
The combination of Arthur, Pecor, and Lorenzo teaches: The occlusion device of claim 1, see 103 rejection above. Arthur further discloses: wherein the at least one pinch member 1770 + 1766 comprises: a first pinch member 1770 (see Fig. 17B, [0509] and [0578]) clamping the first end portions 1760 of the plural strands wire mesh/plurality of strands; and a second pinch member 1766 (see Fig. 17B, [0528]) clamping the second end portions 1784 of the plural strands wire mesh/plurality of strands.
Claim 32
The combination of Arthur, Pecor, and Lorenzo teaches: The occlusion device of claim 1, see 103 rejection above. Lorenzo further teaches: wherein the flexible filler layer 7 + 9 has a hole 3 (see Fig. 2B, [0070]) at the geometrical center 3 of the flexible filler layer 7 + 9 to allow the flexible filler layer 7 + 9 to be centered at the at least one pinch member 54 (see Fig. 2B).
Claim 33
The combination of Arthur, Pecor, and Lorenzo teaches: The occlusion device of claim 32, see 103 rejection above. Lorenzo further teaches: wherein the flexible filler layer 7 + 9 is constructed from a polymeric material or a metallic foil (see [0071], memory alloy material such as nitinol, nitinol meets the definition of a metallic foil, according to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary as “very thin sheet metal”, which nitinol is).
Claim 35
The combination of Arthur, Pecor, and Lorenzo teaches: The occlusion device of claim 33, see 103 rejection above. Pecor further teaches: wherein the flexible filler layer 2516 comprises a deployed configuration (see [0139], when delivered, the membrane spans at least a portion of the neck of the aneurysm, which when only a portion, the maximal dimension is smaller than a dimension of the neck of the aneurysm to be treated, see also [0140]) having a maximal dimension smaller than a dimension of a neck of an aneurysm to be treated.
Claim 36
The combination of Arthur, Pecor, and Lorenzo teaches: The occlusion device of claim 33, see 103 rejection above. Pecor further teaches: wherein the flexible filler layer 2516 comprises a deployed configuration (see [0139], when delivered, alternatively can expand the entire length of the neck cover, having would then cover the entire neck of the aneurysm, see also [0138] and [0140], hence having a maximal dimension larger than a dimension of the neck, since the neck of the aneurysm is opening which the neck cover covers) having a maximal dimension larger than a dimension of a neck of an aneurysm to be treated.
Claim 57
Arthur discloses: An occlusion device 1702 (see Figs. 17A-17B, [0555]-[0559]), comprising: a braided mesh body 1716 + 1738 (see Figs. 17A-17B, [0558] and [0016], support includes mesh) comprising plural strands (see [0309], wire mesh, hence a mesh with plurality of strands), each strand having a first end portion 1760 (see Fig. 17B, [0558], the first portion connect at 1770, [0509]) and a second end portion 1784 (see Fig. 17B, the second end portion connect at 1766), the plural strands wire mesh/plurality of strands folding over to bring the second end portions of the plural strands adjacent to the first end portions of the plural strands (see Fig. 17B, the mesh is folded to form a double-layer of the mesh body with the first 1760 and second ends 1784 being adjacent to one another), forming a double-layer (see Fig. 17B, [0012], double-layer) of the braided mesh body 1716 + 1738; and at least one pinch member 1770 + 1766 (see Fig. 17B, [0509] and [0528]) clamping the first end portions 1760 and the second end portions 1784 of the plural strands wire mesh/plurality of strands, wherein when the braided mesh body 1716 + 1738 (see Fig. 17B) is unconstrained in an expanded configuration state (see Fig. 17B), an inclination the slope of the interior surface of 1710 (see Fig. 17B) of the braided mesh body 1716 + 1738 gradually increases the slope of the interior surface 1710 gradually increases until it reaches 1780 and then it decreases (see Fig. 17B) and then gradually decreases from a base end the base end of 1710 closer to 1770 (see Fig. 17B) closer to the at least one pinch member 1170 to a tail end 1780 (see Fig. 17B) away from the at least one pinch member 1770 thereof, and a straight-line distance (see annotated Fig. 17B below) between the base end and the tail end of a contour line (see annotated Fig. 17B below) and a length (see annotated Fig. 17B below) of the contour line (see annotated Fig. 17B below).
PNG
media_image1.png
538
701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Arthur does not explicitly disclose: a ratio of a straight-line distance between the base end and the tail end of a contour line of the braided mesh body to a length of the contour line is greater than or equal to 0.8; a flexible filler layer between the double-layer of the braided mesh body, the flexible filler layer comprising a plurality of radially arranged sections extending outward from a geometrical center of the flexible filler layer, each of the plurality of sections having a substantially similar shape, the plurality of sections being configured to facilitate folding of the flexible filler layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Arthur to have a ratio of a straight-line distance between the base end and the tail end of a contour line of the braided mesh body to a length of the contour line is greater than or equal to 0.8 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Arthur would not operate differently with a ratio of a straight-line distance between the base end and the tail end of a contour line of the braided mesh body to a length of the contour line is greater than or equal to 0.8. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, see [0137] of applicant’s patent application publication, which recites the ratio can be greater than or equal to 0.5 which is less than 0.8, hence it is not critical that the range is 0.8 or greater as values of 0.5 to 0.8 are acceptable in the disclosure.
However, Pecor in a similar field of invention teaches an occlusion device 2500 (see Fig. 19-20B) with a braided mesh body 2502 (see Fig. 20) with a double layer (see Figs. 19-20B, [0139] and [0143], first and the second portion of the mesh, two portions of the wall of the mesh) and a pinch member 2504 (see Fig. 20B). Pecor further teaches: a flexible filler layer 2516 (see Fig. 19-20B, [0139] and [0140], the membrane from 20A-20B, can be comprise membrane as described in Figs. 19-20B, comprises PTFE, which is a flexible material, per applicant’s own patent application publication [0128], constructed from a flexible polymer such as PTFE ) between the double-layer (see [0139], sandwiched, [0143], positioned therebetween) of the braided mesh body 2502.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arthur to incorporate the teachings of Pecor and teach an occlusion device with a flexible filler layer between the double-layer of the braided mesh body. Motivation for such can be found in Pecor as this membrane can assist in fluid impermeability of the device (see [0139]) while still having a cavity that can receive an embolic composition therethrough (see [0141].
However, Lorenzo in a similar field of invention teaches an occlusion device 10 (see Figs. 1A-2B) with a braided mesh body 12 + 13 (see Figs. 1A-2B) with a flexible filler layer 7 + 9 (see Figs 1A-2B) and at least one pinch member 54 (see Figs. 2A-2B). Lorenzo further teaches: and the flexible filler layer 7 + 9 comprises a plurality of radially arranged sections 7 (see Figs. 2A-2B, [0058]) extending outward from a geometrical center 5 (see Figs. 2A-2B, [0058] and [0070]) of the flexible filler layer 7 + 9, each of the plurality of sections 7 having a substantially similar shape (see Figs. 2A-2B, [0058] and [0070]-[0071]), the plurality of sections 7 being configured to facilitate folding (see [0070], include potential energy stored in the collapsed state, to assist with expansion) of the flexible filler layer 7.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flexible filler layer of Arthur and Pecor to incorporate the teachings of Lorenzo and teach an occlusion device with the flexible filler layer comprises a plurality of radially arranged sections extending outward from a geometrical center of the flexible filler layer, each of the plurality of sections having a substantially similar shape, the plurality of sections being configured to facilitate folding of the flexible filler layer. Motivation for such can be found in Lorenzo as the shape and arrangement of the flexible filler layer can facilitate the expansion of the braided mesh body for deployment of the device (see [0058]) by storing potential energy (see [0068] and [0070]-[0071]).
Claim 58
The combination of Arthur, Pecor, and Lorenzo teaches: The occlusion device of claim 57, see 103 rejection above. Arthur does not explicitly disclose: a ratio of a straight-line distance between the base end and the tail end of a contour line of the braided mesh body to a length of the contour line is greater than or equal to 0.9.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Arthur to have a ratio of a straight-line distance between the base end and the tail end of a contour line of the braided mesh body to a length of the contour line is greater than or equal to 0.9 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Arthur would not operate differently with a ratio of a straight-line distance between the base end and the tail end of a contour line of the braided mesh body to a length of the contour line is greater than or equal to 0.9. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, see [0137] of applicant’s patent application publication, which recites the ratio can be greater than or equal to 0.5 which is less than 0.9, hence it is not critical that the range is 0.9 or greater as values of 0.5 to 0.9 are acceptable in the disclosure.
Claim 59
The combination of Arthur, Pecor, and Lorenzo teaches: The occlusion device of claim 57, see 103 rejection above. Arthur further discloses: wherein there is an intersection point (see annotated Fig. 17B below) between a connecting line (see annotated Fig. 17B below) between the base end and the tail end of the contour line and the contour line, and the position (see annotated Fig. 17B below) of the intersection point (see annotated Fig. 17B below) in the contour line is defined as a first position (see annotated Fig. 17B below), and wherein a ratio of a width of the first position (see annotated Fig. 17B below) to a maximal width (see annotated Fig. 17B below) of the braided mesh body 1716 + 1738 is greater than or equal to 0.5 (see annotated Fig. 17B below, the width of the first position is greater than half of the maximal width, hence having a ratio of greater than or equal to 0.5).
PNG
media_image2.png
642
723
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 60
The combination of Arthur, Pecor, and Lorenzo teaches: The occlusion device of claim 57, see 103 rejection above. Arthur does not explicitly disclose: wherein an inclination of the braided mesh body at the base end ranges from about 10 degrees to about 40 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Arthur to have wherein an inclination of the braided mesh body at the base end ranges from about 10 degrees to about 40 degrees since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Arthur would not operate differently with wherein an inclination of the braided mesh body at the base end ranges from about 10 degrees to about 40 degrees. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, see [0147] of applicant’s patent application publication which recites “10 degrees to about 30 degrees” and “15 degrees to about 30 degrees” as alternatives, showing that “10 degrees to about 40 degrees” is not critical to the invention.
Claim 61
The combination of Arthur, Pecor, and Lorenzo teaches: The occlusion device of claim 57, see 103 rejection above. Arthur does not explicitly disclose: wherein an inclination of the braided mesh body at the tail end ranges from about 15 degrees to about 70 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Arthur to have wherein an inclination of the braided mesh body at the tail end ranges from about 15 degrees to about 70 degrees since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Arthur would not operate differently with wherein an inclination of the braided mesh body at the tail end ranges from about 15 degrees to about 70 degrees. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, see [0149] of applicant’s patent application publication which recites “40 degrees to about 70 degrees” and “40 degrees to about 60 degrees” as alternatives, showing that “15 degrees to about 70 degrees” is not critical to the invention.
Claim 62
The combination of Arthur, Pecor, and Lorenzo teaches: The occlusion device of claim 57, see 103 rejection above. Arthur further discloses: wherein the braided mesh body 1716 + 1738 comprises a second position (see annotated Fig. 17B below) having a maximal inclination between the base end the end near 1772 and the tail end the end near 1780.
PNG
media_image3.png
538
701
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Arthur does not explicitly disclose: and wherein the inclination of the second position ranges from about 70 degrees to about 100 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Arthur to have wherein the inclination of the second position ranges from about 70 degrees to about 100 degrees since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Arthur would not operate differently with wherein the inclination of the second position ranges from about 70 degrees to about 100 degrees. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, see [0148] of applicant’s patent application publication which recites “85 degrees to about 95 degrees” and “80 degrees to about 90 degrees” as alternatives, showing that “70 degrees to about 100 degrees” is not critical to the invention.
Claim 63
The combination of Arthur, Pecor, and Lorenzo teaches: The occlusion device of claim 57, see 103 rejection above. Arthur further discloses: wherein a ratio of a width of the second position (see annotated Fig. 17B below) to a maximal width (see annotated Fig. 17B below) of the braided mesh body 1716 + 1738 is greater than or equal to 0.5 (see annotated Fig. 17B below, the width of the first second is greater than half of the maximal width, hence having a ratio of greater than or equal to 0.5).
PNG
media_image4.png
541
784
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 64
The combination of Arthur, Pecor, and Lorenzo teaches: The occlusion device of claim 57, see 103 rejection above. Arthur further discloses: wherein a maximal width the width of the expandable body (see [0431]) of the braided mesh body 1716 + 1738 ranges from about 5 mm to about 15 mm (see [0431], 1-20 mm, which includes 5 mm to 15 mm).
Claim 65
The combination of Arthur, Pecor, and Lorenzo teaches: The occlusion device of claim 57, see 103 rejection above. Arthur further discloses: the contour line (see annotated Fig. 17b below) comprises a left contour line (see annotated Fig. 17b below) and a right contour line (see annotated Fig. 17b below) wherein an included angle (see annotated Fig. 17b below) of the braided mesh body 1716 + 1738 ranges from about 90 degrees to about 170 degrees (see annotated Fig. 17b below, the angle is greater than a right angle, hence greater than 90 degrees which is between 90 to about 170 degrees).
PNG
media_image5.png
538
829
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arthur in view of Pecor and Lorenzo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Griffin et al (US 20170156734 A1), herein referenced to as “Griffin”.
Claim 11
The combination of Arthur, Pecor, and Lorenzo teaches: The occlusion device of claim 1, see 103 rejection above. Arthur does not explicitly disclose: wherein the plural strands are coated with an anti-thrombogenic material.
However, Griffin in a similar field of invention teaches an occlusion device (see Figs. 9-10) with a plurality of strands (see Figs. 9-10, [0070], mesh structure strands, [0054], mesh). Griffin further teaches: wherein the plural strands mesh/strands (see [0070]) are coated with an anti-thrombogenic material heparin (see [0070], agent which tends to resist clotting, which is anti-thrombogenic).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arthur to incorporate the teachings of Griffin and teach an occlusive device with the plural strands are coated with an anti-thrombogenic material. Motivation for such can be found in Griffin as this helps resist clotting in the area where the device is delivered to such as an aneurysm (see [0070]).
Claim 12
The combination of Arthur, Pecor, and Lorenzo teaches: The occlusion device of claim 1, see 103 rejection above. Arthur does not explicitly disclose: wherein the plural strands are coated with a material comprising glycosaminoglycan (Heparin) or phosphorylcholines (PC).
However, Griffin in a similar field of invention teaches an occlusion device (see Figs. 9-10) with a plurality of strands (see Figs. 9-10, [0070], mesh structure strands, [0054], mesh). Griffin further teaches: wherein the plural strands mesh/strands (see [0070]) are coated with material comprising glycosaminoglycan (Heparin) heparin (see [0070], agent which tends to resist clotting, which is anti-thrombogenic) or phosphorylcholines (PC) (will not be examined here due to being an optional claim limitation in the alternative).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arthur to incorporate the teachings of Griffin and teach an occlusive device with the plural strands are coated with a material comprising glycosaminoglycan (Heparin). Motivation for such can be found in Griffin as this helps resist clotting in the area where the device is delivered to such as an aneurysm (see [0070]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Murphy et al (US 8372062 B2) teaches an occlusion with a double layer with a flexible filler layer in between with a petal-like shape
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAIHAN R KHANDKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6174. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
RAIHAN R. KHANDKER
Examiner
Art Unit 3771
/RAIHAN R KHANDKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights