DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim s 21-22 , 24 -2 7, 29 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gianturco 4,580,568 (hereafter ‘568) , alternatively Gianturco 5,507,771 (hereafter ‘771) , in view of Schwartz et al. 5,282,823 . Regarding claim 21, Gianturco ‘568 and ‘771 disclose an implantable device (element 9 ‘568; element 10; 11’771), comprising: at least one self-supported, wire-like polymer filament ( see the abstract and 2:57 of ‘771 which discloses that the stent may be plastic which equates to the term polymer ) . Gianturco further discloses that the stents filaments form a repeating pattern. The functional limitation “..expandable within an internal cavity of a patient between a first compressed configuration enabling low profile delivery through a delivery device and at least a second expanded configuration for apposition against tissue” carries limited weight in the absence of any distinguishing structure. Gianturco ‘568 and ‘771 disclose the structure as claimed and is thus capable of performing the functions. However , Gianturco ‘568 and ‘771 does not disclose that the polymer is biodegradable, wherein the implantable device/stent is biodegradable and delivers drugs is capable of biodegrading over a predetermined period of time to release a drug. Schwartz et al. 5,282,823 teaches biodegradable polymeric stents that incorporate therapeutic substances for time release ( see 2:60-67 , 4:7-17, and 7:5-48 and incorporated references ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the inventions of Gianturco ‘568 and ‘771 and manufacture the stent from a biodegradable drug delivery polymer in order to provide a temporary scaffold to support diseased tissue whilst treating the tissue with antiplatelet agents, anticoagulant agents, antimicrobial agents, antimetabolic agents and other drugs to reduce the incidence of restenosis. Regarding claim 22 , Gianturco discloses that the device includes at least two self-supported, wire-like biodegradable polymer filaments, wherein the at least two self-supported, wire-like filaments are joined (see illustration supra) . Regarding claim 24 the at least two self- supported wire-like filaments are joined b y mechanical fastener (see element 20 of ‘771). Regarding claim s 25 -2 7 , 32 Schwartz et al. further teaches that polymers filaments may at least partially be coated with a drug eluting layer ; and may include poly(lactide-co- glycolide (see International Patent Application WO 91/12779 "Intraluminal Drug Eluting Prosthesis", which is incorporated herein by reference into Schwartz et al. Further see as evidenced by Wolf et al. 5,545,208, 6:11-15 e.g. dexamethasone ; and PGLA 7:50-65 ) . 4. Regarding the limitation of claim s 29 -31 and 34 they are considered to be functional language. See MPEP 2114 which states: II. MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does ." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). 5. Claim s 2 8 , 32 and 35 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gianturco 4,580,568 (hereafter ‘568) alternatively Gianturco 5,507,771 (hereafter ‘771) in view of Schwartz et al. 5,282,823 and further in view of Fleming III et al. 2004/0249442 . Gianturco 4,580,568 (hereafter ‘568) alternatively Gianturco 5,507,771 (hereafter ‘771) in view of Schwartz et al. 5,282,823 have been disclosed supra however do not disclose the therapeutic drug agents as recited in claim 28. Fleming III et al. teaches an implantable stent with struts that incorporate drugs as recited in claim the ( see [0063] and [0076] ). It would have been obvious to modify the stents of Gianturco and coat the struts with therapeutic chemotherapeutic or antineoplasitic agents in order to treat a variety of disease over a sustained period of time while implanted in the patent. Double Patenting 6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . 7. Claim s 21 - 22, 25 -26 , 29-3 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim s 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,010,651 (hereafter ‘651) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other . 5. Current claim 21 recites: “21.(New) An implantable device for delivering a drug over time, comprising: at least one self-supported, wire-like biodegradable polymer filament expandable within an internal cavity of a patient between a first compressed configuration enabling low profile delivery through a delivery device and at least a second expanded configuration for apposition against tissue, wherein the biodegradable polymer filaments form a repeating pattern and wherein the implantable device is capable of biodegrading over a predetermined period of time to release a drug.” Pat. ‘651 claims 1 and 4 recite” “ 1. A self-expanding device having a size and configuration adapted for implantation within one or more sinus regions, comprising: one or more biodegradable polymer filaments wound into a series of diamond shapes each comprising a peak and a valley, wherein a distal end of the device is defined by the peaks of each of the diamond shapes and a proximal end of the device is defined by the valleys of each of the diamond shapes, and wherein the self-expanding device is configured to self-expand from a first compressed configuration enabling low profile delivery through a delivery device, to a second expanded configuration for conformation against sinus tissue, and wherein the self-expanding device has a compressed diameter in the first compressed configuration and an expanded diameter in the second expanded configuration. ” “ 4. The self-expanding device of claim 1 wherein at least one of the one or more biodegradable polymer filaments is at least partially coated with a drug eluting layer comprising a drug . ” The limitations of the current application claim 21 are recited in pat. ‘651 in a varied manner and pat. ‘651 recites more limitations with regards to the structure of the filaments. 8. Regarding claim 22 , 26-27 pat. ‘651 recites one or more thus it is obvious that this meeting the limitation of “at least two self-supported” wire-like filaments. Pat. ‘651 further recites the use of anti-inflammatories (which equates to claim 26 -27) and it would have been obvious to utilize a variety of therapeutics in order to address the needs of the patient. 9. Regarding claims 29-31 , 34 see claims pat. ‘651 claim 12 which recites a degradation times of about 5 to 120 days. It is obvious that the claimed degradation times fall withing the timelines. 10. Claims 32 - 33 and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,010,651 (hereafter ‘651) in view of Wood et al. 2009/0312834 (hereafter ‘834) . Pat. ‘651 has been disclosed supra however does not claim that the at least one self-supported, wire-like biodegradable polymer filament includes poly(lactide-co- glycolide ) or that the at least one self-supported, wire-like biodegradable polymer filament includes poly(lactide-co-caprolactone) or the anti-allergens as recited. . Wood et al. ‘834 teaches that stent filaments may be made from any suitable implantable materials such as poly(L-lactide-co- glycolide ) (PLLA/PGA), poly(D,L-lactide-co- glycolide ) (PLA/PGA), poly( glycolide -co- trimethylene carbonate) (PGA/PTMC), polydioxanone (PDS), Polycaprolactone (PCL), polyhydroxybutyrate (PHBT), poly( phosphazene )poly(D,L-lactide-co-caprolactone) PLA/PCL), poly( glycolide -co-caprolactone . See [0036]) and teaches the use of salts and derivatives [0037] and analogs [0052] . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of pat. ‘651 and manufacture the wire-like structure from poly(lactide-co- glycolide ) or poly(lactide-co-caprolactone) because the materials are well-known in the art to be tolerated by for body lumens and organs. Allowable Subject Matter 11. Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 12. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art has been described supra however does not teach or disclose that the implantable device includes at least two self-supported, wire-like biodegradable polymer filaments, wherein the at least two self-supported, wire-like biodegradable polymer filament are interwoven . Conclusion 13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Suzette Gherbi whose telephone number is (571)272- 4751. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00am-3:00pm. 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:/Avww.uspto.gov/ interviewpractice . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Melanie Tyson can be reached on 571-272-9062. 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:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent- center for more information about Patent Center and https:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 . /SUZETTE J GHERBI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 March 17, 2026