Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Acosta, on page 7 of the remarks dated 06/05/2026, it is stated that Acosta teaches an insertion into a patient’s leg to treat a venous insufficiency, teaching away from the limitations presented in claim 1 in the claim set dated 06/05/2026. In response, Johnson (US Pub No.: 2007/0050014) was brought in to replace Acosta. With respect to the details recited regarding Dave and Scribner on pages 5-7 of the provided remarks, examiner notes that a specific argument is not present to teach against said prior art. Examiner assumes that these arguments are used to state that Dave and Scribner do not teach the areas that Acosta is argued to not teach.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 16-17, and 23-25 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dave (US Pub No.: 2009/0287300) in view of Scribner (US Pub No.: 2009/0149860) and Johnson (US Pub No.: 2007/0050014).
Regarding claim 1, Dave (US Pub No.: 2009/0287300) discloses a method of treating cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (stent disclosed in [0014], use in a brain in [0491], spinal artery in [0443]), comprising the steps of: identifying a patient having at least a partial obstruction at a site in the venous outflow track from the brain (as a treatment of a brain in [0491] and spinal artery in [0443] are present, with a tailoring of therapies and drugs to be coated in the stent present in [0508], an identification of a patient is present. Relieving of an obstruction in [0130]); and implanting a valve (valve in [0348]) entirely within cerebral and thoracic vasculature (treatment with cerebral syndromes in [0495], placement in cerebral arteries in [0585]. Repair of thoracic aorta aneurysms in [0441]), to permit venous outflow and reduce retrograde pressure (retrograde flow details in [0442]-[0443], reduction of pressure that causes retrograde blood flow detailed in [0443]), wherein a support structure for the valve functions to support the valve in an operative orientation and resist migration away from the (the valve presents sliding movement between the shaft and sheath of the stent in [0375], preventing migration away from the site).
However, Dave (US Pub No.: 2009/0287300) does not teach that the valve is specifically reducing a retrograde pressure.
Instead, Scribner (US Pub No.: 2009/0149860) teaches a valve to permit venous outflow and reduce retrograde pressure (in [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the valve functions of Scribner into Dave for the purpose allowing the valve of Scribner to prevent a flow of blood and body fluids past the valve in an unintended direction, as disclosed in [0037].
From here, Dave in view of Scribner does not teach that the venous outflow is “through the valve in the venous outflow track from the brain to treat cerebrospinal venous insufficiency” or that the support structure will resist migration away from the “venous outflow track from the brain.”
Instead, Johnson (US Pub No.: 2007/0050014) teaches wherein the venous outflow is “through the valve in the venous outflow track from the brain to treat cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (implantable device to treat venous insufficiency in the abstract, brain insertion disclosure in [0025])” or that the support structure will resist migration away from the “venous outflow track from the brain (in [0057]).” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the placement details of Johnson into the combination of Dave in view of Scribner for the purpose of providing a means to treat a brain of a user in [0025] via a minimally invasive technique in [0026] with an anchoring element to prevent a migration of the device in [0057].
Regarding claim 2, Dave in view of Scribner and Johnson teach the method of treating cerebrospinal venous insufficiency as in claim 1, with Dave further comprising removing the obstruction by inflating a balloon at the site (use of a balloon for an angioplasty in [0127], where an angioplasty involves removing an obstruction. “Balloon expandable stent” in [0308]).
Regarding claim 3, Dave in view of Scribner teach the method of treating cerebrospinal venous insufficiency as in Claim 2, wherein Dave teaches the balloon carries an implant (in [0133], the balloon expansion influences the diameter of the stent, implying that the implanted stent interfaces with the balloon).
Regarding claim 4, Dave in view of Scribner and Johnson teach the method of treating cerebrospinal venous insufficiency as in Claim 2, with Dave further comprising removing the balloon and thereafter implanting the valve (as Dave teaches a balloon angioplasty in [0127] and [0234], a removal of the balloon after a stent expansion is implied as per the definition of angioplasty. Implantation of the device of Dave also involves implantation of a valve).
Regarding claim 5, Dave in view of Scribner and Johnson teach the method of treating cerebrospinal venous insufficiency as in Claim 2, wherein Dave discloses the balloon is carried by a catheter introduced into the vasculature at an access point spaced apart from the site (a microneedle to guide a catheter is inserted away from the treatment site in [0511], where the catheter holds the balloon in [0339]).
Regarding claim 7, Dave in view of Scribner and Johnson teach the method of treating cerebrospinal venous insufficiency as in Claim 1, wherein Dave discloses that the implanting the valve comprises surgically attaching the valve at the site (in [0375]-[0376], the shaft and shaft are locked together via the valve when inserted into the patient. As the line “when being inserted into a patient” is present in [0375], an attachment of the valve during implantation is occurring).
Regarding claim 8, Dave in view of Scribner and Johnson teach the method of treating cerebrospinal venous insufficiency as in Claim 1, wherein Dave discloses the support structure comprises a self-expandable support structure (disclosed in [0134]) coupled to the valve (as the self-expanding structure is in part 100 and as the valve of Dave is placed in the stent in [0134], the valve of [0375]-[0376] will also be coupled to the support structure), wherein implanting the valve comprises releasing the valve having the self-expandable support structure coupled to the valve at the site (as the stent has a self-expanding structure in [0134] and comprises a valve in [0375]-[0376], the valve will have the self-expandable support at the implant site).
Regarding claim 9, Dave in view of Scribner teach the method of treating cerebrospinal venous insufficiency as in Claim 1, wherein Dave discloses the implanting the valve comprises inflating a balloon within a balloon expandable portion of the valve support at the site (inflating of a balloon that can increase a lumen size in [0487] and a balloon expandable stent in [0499]. As the stent comprises a valve in [0375]-[0376], the balloon expandable stent also acts upon the valve).
Regarding claim 10, Dave in view of Scribner and Johnson teach the method of treating cerebrospinal venous insufficiency as in Claim 7, wherein Dave discloses the implanting the valve comprises implanting a tubular graft (stent-graft in [0308] with more graft details in [0309]) having the valve mounted therein (As the stent comprises a valve in [0375]-[0376], the balloon expandable stent also acts upon the valve).
Regarding claim 11, Dave in view of Scribner and Johnson teach the method of treating cerebrospinal venous insufficiency as in Claim 7, wherein Dave discloses the implanting the valve comprises attaching a first end of a graft at a first anastomosis to the left internal jugular vein and attaching a second end of the graft at a second anastomosis to the left innominate vein (as a joining of arteries and veins is present in [0124] of Dave (via the statement of “the joining of arteries, veins, and other fluid carrying conduits), it stands to reason that the device of Dave with the valve of Dave and Scribner can extend between the left jugular vein and the left innominate vein).
Regarding claim 16, Dave in view of Scribner and Johnson teach the method of treating cerebrospinal venous insufficiency as in Claim 10, wherein Dave discloses the tubular graft comprises a tubular ePTFE wall (ePTFE for use in a graft disclosed in [0396]).
Regarding claim 17, Dave in view of Scribner and Johnson teach the method of treating cerebrospinal venous insufficiency as in Claim 10, wherein Dave discloses the tubular graft comprises a section of saphenous vein (harvesting a portion of a saphenous vein for a graft disclosed in [0309] of Dave).
Regarding claim 23, Dave in view of Scribner and Johnson teach the method of treating cerebrospinal venous insufficiency as in Claim 1, wherein Dave discloses the support structure and the valve are separately implanted and connected in situ (in [0375]-[0376], the shaft and shaft are locked together via the valve when inserted into the patient. As the line “when being inserted into a patient” is present in [0375], an attachment of the valve during implantation is occurring).
Regarding claim 24, Dave in view of Scribner and Johnson teach the method of treating cerebrospinal venous insufficiency as in Claim 1, wherein Dave discloses the support structure and the valve are on the same device (the support structure and valve are a part of the same stent device in [0375]-[0376] after insertion into the patient).
Regarding claim 25, Dave in view of Scribner teach and Johnson the method of treating cerebrospinal venous insufficiency as in Claim 1, wherein Dave discloses the support structure comprises an antithrombogenic material (use of pyrolytic carbon that is “highly thromboresistant” in the device is disclosed in [0368]).
Claim 6 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dave (US Pub No.: 2009/0287300) in view of Scribner (US Pub No.: 2009/0149860) and Johnson (US Pub No.: 2007/0050014) in further view of Hayes (US Patent No.: 4,967,745).
Regarding claim 6, Dave in view of Scribner and Johnson teach the method of treating cerebrospinal venous insufficiency as in Claim 1. However, Dave in view of Scribner does not teach an instance further comprising removing the obstruction by surgically removing a section of vein.
Instead, Hayes (US Patent No.: 4,967,745) teaches wherein removing the obstruction by surgically removing a section of vein (In column 25 lines 65-67 to column 26 lines 1-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the removing of obstructions and/or veins presented in Hayes via a laser catheter into the combination involving Davis for the purpose of providing a means that can be inserted into the patient’s vasculature (as per column 6 lines 3-19) and can be used to remove obstructions in a vein or the entire vein itself (as per columns 25 lines 51-67 into column 26 lines 1-31) with a controlled removal of the obstructions/veins and a spectroscopic analysis of said obstructions and veins disclosed in column 26 lines 1-31.
Claims 12-15 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dave (US Pub No.: 2009/0287300) in view of Scribner (US Pub No.: 2009/0149860) and Johnson (US Pub No.: 2007/0050014) in further view of Porter (US Pub No.: 2006/0064159).
Regarding claim 12, Dave in view of Scribner and Johnson teach the method of treating cerebrospinal venous insufficiency as in Claim 1. However, said combination does not teach an instance wherein the valve is implanted in the left internal jugular vein.
Instead, Porter (US Pub No.: 2006/0064159) teaches wherein the valve is implanted in the left internal jugular vein (implantation of a graft into an internal jugular vein in [0099] wherein the graft comprises a valved interface in [0098])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the placement details of Porter into Dave and Scribner for the purpose of providing specific details as to where the stent, graft, and valve of Dave may be inserted. Insertion into the internal jugular vein, as presented in Porter, is also beneficial as this allows for a specific treatment of a portion of the body, and the structure of Porter also provides for a dialysis use in [0002]-[0003].
Regarding claim 13, Dave in view of Scribner and Johnson teach the method of treating cerebrospinal venous insufficiency as in Claim 1. However, said combination does not teach wherein the valve is implanted in the right internal jugular vein.
Instead, Porter (US Pub No.: 2006/0064159) teaches wherein the valve is implanted in the left internal jugular vein (implantation of a graft into an internal jugular vein in [0099] wherein the graft comprises a valved interface in [0098]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the placement details of Porter into Dave and Scribner for the purpose of providing specific details as to where the stent, graft, and valve of Dave may be inserted. Insertion into the internal jugular vein, as presented in Porter, is also beneficial as this allows for a specific treatment of a portion of the body, and the structure of Porter also provides for a dialysis use in [0002]-[0003].
Regarding claim 14, Dave in view of Scribner and Johnson teach the method of treating cerebrospinal venous insufficiency as in Claim 1. However, said combination does not teach wherein the valve is implanted in the azygos vein.
Instead, Porter (US Pub No.: 2006/0064159) teaches wherein the valve is implanted in the left internal jugular vein (implantation of a graft into the azygos vein in [0099] wherein the graft comprises a valved interface in [0098]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the placement details of Porter into Dave and Scribner for the purpose of providing specific details as to where the stent, graft, and valve of Dave may be inserted. Insertion into the azygos vein, as presented in Porter, is also beneficial as this allows for a specific treatment of a portion of the body, and the structure of Porter also provides for a dialysis use in [0002]-[0003].
Regarding claim 15, Dave in view of Scribner and Johnson teach the method of treating cerebrospinal venous insufficiency as in Claim 1. However, said combination does not teach wherein the valve is implanted in the superior vena cava.
Instead, Porter (US Pub No.: 2006/0064159) teaches wherein the valve is implanted in the left internal jugular vein (implantation of a graft into the superior vena cava in [0099] wherein the graft comprises a valved interface in [0098]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the placement details of Porter into Dave and Scribner for the purpose of providing specific details as to where the stent, graft, and valve of Dave may be inserted. Insertion into the superior vena cava, as presented in Porter, is also beneficial as this allows for a specific treatment of a portion of the body, and the structure of Porter also provides for a dialysis use in [0002]-[0003].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sinnreich (US Patent No.: 4,198,981) was considered for an inflating device for a surgical procedure, with disclosures to an implanted inflatable balloon. Doig (US Pub No.: 2004/0215327) considered for a stent (in the abstract) with disclosure for use in spinal arteries (in [0002]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AREN PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0144. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 4:30 M-Th.
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, Jerrah C. Edwards can be reached at (408) 918-7557. 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.
/AREN PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/JERRAH EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights