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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/17/2023, 4/3/2025, 7/22/2025 and 9/22/2025 have been received and made of record. Note the acknowledged form PTO-1449 enclosed herewith. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference numeral “ 210“ in Figure 23 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specific ation and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a wire connection structure” in claims 1-5 and 20 . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1- 2, 6-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Pung et al. (US 2016/0199204 ) . Pung discloses (see Fig s . 2 and 12, wherein the wires are best shown in cleaner Fig. 11 ) a stent comprising the following claim limitations: (claim 1) A stent comprising: a first wire (46A, as best shown in Fig. 11) ; a second wire (48B, as best shown in Fig. 11) ; and, a wire connection structure (54, Fig. 12) fixed at an end region of the second wire (48B) and fixed to the first wire (46A) (as expressly shown in Fig. 12; [0069]; [0090]- [0091] ; disclosed embodiments expressly may comprise mechanical ties in addition to/in combination with adhesive and welds to bind respective stent portions together ) ; (claim 2) wherein the first wire (46A) is about parallel to the second wire (48B) (as expressly shown in Fig. 12) ; (claim 6) wherein the wire connection structure (54) comprises a primary wire coil wrapped around the first wire (46A) and the second wire (48B) , near the end region (i.e., near 52A) of the second wire (48B) (as expressly shown in Fig. 12) ; (claim 7) wherein the primary wire coil (54) comprises 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 loops (e.g., 6-7 coils expressly shown in Fig. 12) ; (claim 8) wherein the primary wire coil (54) is composed of a tantalum wire ([0069] ; [0083] ) ; (claim 9) further comprising adhesive located underneath the primary wire coil (54) ([0069]; [0091]; disclosed embodiments expressly may comprise mechanical ties in addition to/in combination with adhesive to bind respective stent portions together) ; (claim 10) further comprising one or a plurality of stop members (50A/50B/52A/52B) connected to the first wire (46A) (as shown in Fig. 12) , the second wire (48B) (as shown in Fig. 12) , or separately to the first wire around the second wire; wherein the one or plurality of stop members (50A/50B/52A/52B) are adjacent to the primary wire coil (54) (as shown in Fig. 12) ; (claim 11) wherein the first wire (46A) comprises a first stop member (52B) adjacent a first end of the primary wire coil (54) and a second stop member (50A) adjacent a second end of the primary wire coil (54) (as shown in Fig. 12) ; and wherein the second wire (48B) comprises a third stop member (50B) adjacent the first end of the primary wire coil (54) and a fourth stop member (52A) adjacent the second end of the primary wire coil (54) (as shown in Fig. 12) ; (claim 12) wherein the one or plurality of secondary stop members (50A/50B/52A/52B) comprise one or a plurality of secondary coils, one or a plurality of sleeves, one or a plurality of tubes, one or a plurality of beads, one or a plurality of welds, or one or a plurality of attached enlargements (as shown in Fig. 12, stop members 50A/50B/52A/52B are depicted as beads or attached enlargements) ; and (claim 20) A stent comprising: a first wire (46A, as best shown in Fig. 11) ; a second wire (48B, as best shown in Fig. 11) ; and, a wire connection structure means (54, Fig. 12) for fixing an end region of the second wire (48B) to the first wire (46A) (as expressly shown in Fig. 12; [0069]; [0091]; disclosed embodiments expressly may comprise mechanical ties in addition to/in combination with adhesive to bind respective stent portions together) . 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 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) 3-4 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the embodiment of Fig 12 of Pung as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the embodiment of Fig. 17B of Pung . The embodiment of Fig. 12 of Pung , as applied above, discloses a stent comprising all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the first wire is braided to form a first stent layer and wherein the second wire is a connecting wire interwoven with the first wire and a second stent layer, wherein the connecting wire is connected to an end loop of the first stent layer formed from the first wire, and wherein the wire connection structure further comprises a first wire connection structure connecting a first end region of the connecting wire to a first end loop of the stent, and a second wire connection structure connecting a second end region of the connecting wire to a second end loop of the stent . However, the embodiment of Fig. 17B of Pung teaches a similar stent comprising wherein the first wire is braided to form a first stent layer (as shown in Fig. 17B; [0105]; the overall stent expressly may comprise a two layer stent) and wherein the second wire is a connecting wire (105, Fig. 17B) interwoven with the first wire and a second stent layer (as shown in Fig. 17B; [0105]; the overall stent expressly may comprise a two layer stent having an interwoven wire wound through both stent layers binding the layers together), wherein the connecting wire (105) is connected to an end loop of the first stent layer formed from the first wire (as shown in Figs. 17A-17B; [0105]; radiopaque wire 105 expressly shown extending along the entire length of the stent), and wherein the wire connection structure (see claim 1 rejection above) further comprises a first wire connection structure connecting a first end region of the connecting wire (105) to a first end loop of the stent (as shown in Figs. 17A-17B; [0105]; i.e., “left” end of radiopaque wire 105 expressly shown ending at the left end of the stent), and a second wire connection structure connecting a second end region of the connecting wire to a second end loop of the stent ( as shown in Figs. 17A-17B; [0105]; i.e., “right” end of radiopaque wire 105 expressly shown ending at the right end of the stent ) in order to beneficially provide a multi-layered stent having enhanced and augmented visualization of the stent location ([0105]) . Therefore, i t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the stent of embodiment of Fig. 12 of Pung to have the first wire being braided to form a first stent layer and wherein the second wire is a connecting wire interwoven with the first wire and a second stent layer, wherein the connecting wire is connected to an end loop of the first stent layer formed from the first wire, and wherein the wire connection structure further comprises a first wire connection structure connecting a first end region of the connecting wire to a first end loop of the stent, and a second wire connection structure connecting a second end region of the connecting wire to a second end loop of the stent in order to beneficially provide a multi-layered stent having enhanced and augmented visualization of the stent location , as taught by embodiment of Fig. 17B of Pung . Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the embodiments of Fig s. 12 and 17B of Pung as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Chouinard (US 6,156,064). The embodiments of Figs. 12 and 17B of Pung , as applied above, discloses a stent comprising all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the first wire comprises a DFT wire and wherein the second wire comprises a Nitinol wire . However, Chouinard teaches a similar stent comprising a first wire comprises a DFT wire and wherein a second wire comprises a Nitinol wire (col. 3, lines 61-64; col. 8, lines 21-27; stent filaments comprising a combination of DFT wire and Nitinol expressly taught) in order to beneficially provide interbraided helically wound filaments capable of a reduction in diameter with a corresponding increase in length facilitating delivery and further providing a sufficiently high modulus of elasticity to provide elasticity to the braided structure (col. 8, lines 9-20) . Therefore, i t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the stent of the embodiments of Figs. 12 and 17B of Pung to have the first wire comprising a DFT wire and the second wire comprising a Nitinol wire in order to beneficially provide interbraided helically wound filaments capable of a reduction in diameter with a corresponding increase in length facilitating delivery and further providing a sufficiently high modulus of elasticity to provide elasticity to the braided structure , as taught by Chouinard . Additionally and/or in the alternative , it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the first wire of DFT wire and the second wire of Nitinol , since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416. Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the embodiment of Fig 12 of Pung et al. (US 2016/0199204) in view of the embodiment of Fig. 19 of Pung . The embodiment of Fig. 12 of Pung discloses (see Fig. 12, wherein the wires are best shown in cleaner Fig. 11) a stent comprising the following claim limitations: (claim 13) wherein the wire connection structure (54) comprises a first weld that is welded to the first wire (46A) and the second wire (48B) (i.e., weld adjacent 52B ), and a second weld wired to the first wire (46A) and the second wire (48B) at the end region of the second wire (48B) (i.e., weld adjacent 52A) ([0069]; [0090]-[0091]; disclosed embodiments expressly may comprise mechanical ties in addition to/in combination with adhesive and welds to bind respective stent portions together); (claim 14) wherein adhesive is located on the first wire (46A) and the second wire (48B) between the first weld and the second weld ([0069]; [0090] -[ 0091]; disclosed embodiments expressly may comprise mechanical ties in addition to/in combination with adhesive and welds to bind respective stent portions together); The embodiment of Fig. 12 of Pung does not specifically teach first and second weld spaced apart from each other . However, the embodiment of Fig. 19 of Pung expressly teaches a similar stent connection structure (78) comprising either (1) one or (2) more than one weld along the parallel connected wires (as shown in Fig. 19; [0103]) . Accordingly, the embodiment of Fig. 19 teaches that it is known that a single weld stent connection and a plurality of linearly spaced apart weld stent connections are elements that are functional equivalents for providing a wire connection between two wires of a stent . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have substituted the plurality of linearly spaced apart weld stent connections taught by the embodiment of Fig. 19 for the single weld stent connection of the embodiment of Fig. 12 because both elements were known equivalents for providing a wire connection between two wires of a stent within the prosthetic stent art. The substitution would have resulted in the predictable results of providing a wire connection between two wires of the stent of the embodiment of Fig. 12 of Pung . Claim(s) 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pung et al. (US 2016/0199204) in view of Sirhan et al. (US 20170290686 ) . Pung discloses (see Figs. 2 and 12, wherein the wires are best shown in cleaner Fig. 11) a stent comprising the following claim limitations: (claim 17) A stent comprising: a first wire (46A, as best shown in Fig. 11) ; a second wire (48B, as best shown in Fig. 11) that is about parallel to the first wire (46A) (as expressly shown in Fig. 12); and, a wire connection structure (50A/50B/52A/52B/54, Fig. 12) fixed at an end region of the second wire (48B) and fixed to the first wire (46A) ([0069]; [0091]; disclosed embodiments expressly may comprise mechanical ties in addition to/in combination with adhesive to bind respective stent portions together); the wire connection structure comprising a primary wire coil (at 54) and one or more stop members (50A/50B/52A/52B, Fig. 12) located longitudinally adjacent the primary wire coil (54) (as expressly shown in Fig. 12); (claim 18) wherein the stop members (50A/50B/52A/52B) comprise one or a plurality of secondary coils, one or a plurality of sleeves, one or a plurality of tubes, one or a plurality of beads, one or a plurality of welds, or one or a plurality of attached enlargements (as shown in Fig. 12, stop members 50A/50B/52A/52B are depicted as beads or attached enlargements); and (claim 19) further comprising adhesive located at least underneath the primary wire coil (54) ([0069]; [0091]; disclosed embodiments expressly may comprise mechanical ties in addition to/in combination with adhesive to bind respective stent portions together) . Pung fails to expressly disclose the first wire comprising a first material and the second wire comprising a second material. However, Sirhan teaches a similar stent comprising a first wire comprising a first material ([0145]; a first degradable material, such as a polymer material is expressly taught) and a second wire comprising a second material ([0145]; a second stronger non-degradable material, such as a metal material is expressly taught) in order to beneficially provide for a stent that can deploy with sufficient strength to support a body lumen and further beneficially provides for modification/degradation allowing for expansion to a larger configuration from the deployed configuration, as needed ([0145 ]-[0150 ]) . Therefore, i t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the stent of Pung to have the first wire comprising a first material and the second wire comprising a second material in order to beneficially provide for a stent that can deploy with sufficient strength to support a body lumen and further beneficially provides for modification/degradation allowing for expansion to a larger configuration from the deployed configuration, as needed , as taught by Sirhan . Double Patenting 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 . Claims 1-2, 6 and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No . 12 , 551 , 357 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are broader variants of the claims of the patent and this anticipate the claims of the patent, as set forth below. See MPEP 2131.02(I). Present Invention U.S. Pat . No. 12 , 551 , 357 1 1 -20 2 17 6 1-20 17 1 -20 18 1 -20 19 5,9,18 20 1- 20 Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Lynch whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3952 . The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:00AM-6:00PM, with alternate Fridays off). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Elizabeth Houston , at (571) 272- 7134 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ROBERT A LYNCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771