DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendments and remarks, filed April 13, 2026, are fully acknowledged by the Examiner. Currently, claims 1-6 and 9-20 are pending with claims 1-5 and 17-20 withdrawn, claims 7 and 8 cancelled, and claims 6, 9, 10 amended. Applicant’s amendments to claim 10 have obviated the previously-filed rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The following is a complete response to the April 13, 2026 communication.
Republication Request in the April 13, 2026 Remarks
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s request for republication due to a supposed error by the Office. The Examiner notes that republication requests are available with the Office of Petitions under one of 37 CFR 1.221(a) or (b). See also MPEP 1130.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the requirement in claim 6 where “the first spine end and the second spine end of each spine member meet to be evenly positioned with one another in an axial direction relative to the longitudinal axis when the substantially cylindrical structure is in an expanded configuration” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, the claim has been amended to require that “the first spine end and the second spine end of each spine member meet to be evenly positioned with one another in an axial direction relative to the longitudinal axis when the substantially cylindrical structure is in an expanded configuration”. The Examiner has reviewed the disclosure, including the originally-filed claims, but has failed to identify any disclosure that either implicitly or explicitly supports that each of the first/second spine end meet such that they are evenly positioned with another in an axial direction relative to the longitudinal axis.
Originally-filed claim 8 has previously set forth that “the first spine end of each spine member meets the second spine end of the spine member when the substantially cylindrical structure is in an expanded configuration”. This, however, doesn’t support that the first and second spline ends of each discrete spine member “meet to be evenly positioned with another in an axial direction relative to the longitudinal axis when the substantially cylindrical structure is in an expanded configuration” as presently set forth in amended independent claim 1.
The Examiner has further review the filed Specification and has identified that the claimed “first spine end” is equivalent to the disclosed “first end 212”, and that the claimed “second spine end” is equivalent to the disclosed “second end 216”. The Examiner has failed, however, to find any explicit discussion that the first end 212 and the second end 216 “meet to be evenly positioned with one another in an axial direction relative to the longitudinal axis when the substantially cylindrical structure is in an expanded configuration”. There is simply no description that discusses the spacing of the ends 212/216 let alone that such are “evenly spaced” as claimed.
Further, with respect to the claim terminology of “axial direction”, the Examiner finds that filed paragraphs [0007] and [0097] discuss a similar term of “axially” therein. This, however, is provided in context with the curving of the middle portion relative to the longitudinal axis. In particular, [0007] sets forth that “[e]ach respective middle portion can curve axially from the longitudinal axis to form an outer surface of the substantially cylindrical structure”. The disclosure in each of [0007] and [0097] fails to provide any insight as to the spacing or any manner of relative positions of the first/second spine end. At most, the Examiner finds that such disclosure provides insight that an “axial direction” would appear to be in some manner of transverse direction relative to the longitudinal axis.
Turning to the Drawings, the Examiner has failed to find any depiction therein as readily provides insight that the first and second spine end of each spine meet to be evenly positioned with one another in an axial direction relative to the longitudinal axis when the substantially cylindrical structure is in an expanded configuration. Figures 2A, 2B, 5A, 5B and 6, while providing a depiction of one or more of the first end 212 and the second end 218, fail to provide any manner of structural depiction that shows that the first/second end of each respective spine meet in the manner claimed.
The most relevant depiction of in the Drawings appear in figures 2, 4B and 4C. These figures, however, fail to provide any geometrical marking with respect to each of 212/216 that would provide insight that such are evenly spaced in any manner, let alone in an axial direction relative to the longitudinal axis when the substantially cylindrical structure is in an expanded configuration. Further, it appears from the figures that the first end 212 and the second end 218 indicate the proximal-most termination of the straight portion that extends “between the distal end and a second spine end” as claimed. This is contrasted with the first section 211a the extends from the first end 212, and the proximal portion 216 that extends from the second end 218.
Additionally, the instant figures are not explicitly noted as being drawn to scale (see paragraph [0024] of the filed Specification), thus preventing the Examiner from reasonably ascertaining the relative structure arrangement between each of 212/218 (see MPEP 2125). Further, inasmuch as the Examiner can ascertain from the figures and the depiction of the ends 212/218 therein, figure 3 appears to show the ends at the proximal end of each of the portions 211a/216 being uneven. Thus, the Examiner fails to find that the first end 212 and the second end 218 are spaced as in the at-issue claim limitation based on the illustrated structure provided in the Drawings.
It is, therefore, in view of at least the reasoning set forth in the rejection of claim 6 above that the Examiner finds requirement in the claim of ““the first spine end and the second spine end of each spine member meet to be evenly positioned with one another in an axial direction relative to the longitudinal axis when the substantially cylindrical structure is in an expanded configuration” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 9-16 are rejected due to their respective dependency on claim 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Basu on page 7 of the April 13, 2026 Remarks have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Examiner reserves the right to revisit each of the prior cited Basu, Whayne, Govari and Willard references in response to a future response from Applicant. The Examiner is not setting forth an art-based under either of 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 at this time in light of the newly proffered rejection of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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 RONALD HUPCZEY, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 8 am - 4 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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.
/Ronald Hupczey, Jr./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights