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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/06/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 32, 40, 41, 57, and 65 have been amended, claims 31 and 37-39 have been cancelled, claims 66-67 have been added, and claims 2-10, 13-30, and 42-56 remain withdrawn. Thus, claims 1-30, 32-36, and 40-67 are presently pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, Species B, and Group 2, species A in the reply filed on 09/18/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the other species show that the first end portions and the second end portions of the plural strands of the mesh body are pinched. This is not found persuasive because the species identified is that the mesh body ends meet at two pinch members, not that the end portions are pinched.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 40-41 remain withdrawn and 66-67 are withdrawn as being dependent claim 40.
Claim 40 is withdrawn as it is directed towards Group 2, Species B, (Ball and wire coupler) not Group 2, Species A (Hook-like coupler). Claim 40 recites “wherein the coupler comprises a spherical body having an interference fit… a first wire having a distal end attached to the spherical body”, which is directed to the non-elected species.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 18, filed 02/06/2026, with respect to the USC 112b rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the issue of clarity within the claims. The USC 112b rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 18, filed 02/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Arthur et al (US 20230346382 A1), herein referenced to as “Arthur” have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The applicant amended claim 1 to further recite “a flexible filler layer between the double-layer of the braided mesh body”. The examiner agrees that Arthur does not explicitly disclose a flexible filler layer between the double-layer of the braided mesh body.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 et al (US 20240050099 A1).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 18, filed 02/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Arthur et al (US 20230346382 A1), herein referenced to as “Arthur” have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The applicant amended claim 1 to further recite “a flexible filler layer between the double-layer of the braided mesh body”. The examiner agrees that Arthur does not explicitly disclose a flexible filler layer between the double-layer of the braided mesh body.
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 et al (US 20240050099 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, 32-36, 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”.
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.
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].
Claim 5
The combination of Arthur and Pecor 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 and Pecor teaches: The occlusion device of claim 1, see 103 rejection above. Pecor further teaches: wherein the flexible filler layer 2516 has a hole 2510 + 2514 (see Figs. 2A-20B, [0141]) at a geometrical center 2510 of the flexible filler layer 2516 to allow the flexible filler layer 2516 to be centered at the at least one pinch member 2504 (see Figs. 20A-20B, 2516 is centered on 2504).
Claim 33
The combination of Arthur and Pecor teaches: The occlusion device of claim 32, see 103 rejection above. Pecor further teaches: wherein the flexible filler layer 2504 is constructed from a polymeric material (see [0139], PTFE, is a polymeric material) or a metallic foil (see [0139], metals).
Claim 34
The combination of Arthur and Pecor teaches: The occlusion device of claim 33, see 103 rejection above. Pecor further teaches: wherein the flexible filler layer 2516 comprises two or more sections (see annotated Fig. 20A below) of a same or similar shape to facilitate folding of the flexible filler layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
614
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The language, " to facilitate folding of the flexible filler layer," constitutes functional claim language, indicating that the claimed device need only be capable of being used in such a manner. The claim, however, is an apparatus claim, and is to be limited by structural limitations. The Office submits that the device of Arthur and Pecor meets the structural limitations of the claim, and is capable of the flexible filler layer’s sections facilitating the folding of the flexible filler layer, as it is made of a flexible material PTFE (see [0139]) and is capable of elastically deforming (see [0143]), hence “folding” especially when constrained in a catheter.
Furthermore, wherein in product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Claim 35
The combination of Arthur and Pecor 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 and Pecor 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_image2.png
538
701
media_image2.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.
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].
Claim 58
The combination of Arthur and Pecor 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 and Pecor 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_image3.png
642
723
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 60
The combination of Arthur and Pecor 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 and Pecor 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 and Pecor 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_image4.png
538
701
media_image4.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 and Pecor 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_image5.png
541
784
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 64
The combination of Arthur and Pecor 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 and Pecor 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_image6.png
538
829
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arthur in view of Pecor 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 and Pecor 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 and Pecor 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
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 RAIHAN R KHANDKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6174. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 PM - 3:00 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
/DARWIN P EREZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771