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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 December 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grellou (FR 361387) in view of Wetzels et al (20120301654).
In regards to Claim 1, Grellou teaches a method for making a braided medical device (tire, could be used on a wheel chair), the method comprising:
positioning a ring-shaped insert (Detail B) inside a braided structure (Figure 2); and
processing the braided structure to form the braided medical device (Figure 2 shows the braid being formed).
While Grellou essentially teaches the invention as detailed, it fails to specifically teach the structure of the insert. Wetzels, however, teaches that when forming similar devices, it is well known to use a frangible insert which can be later be removed (reshapeable polystyrene foam, Paragraph 43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a frangible insert, so as to make removal easier after production.
It is noted that Wetzels discusses Grellou in Paragraphs 5 and 20.
In regards to Claim 2, Wetzels teaches the frangible insert comprises an annular configuration that is configured to form a void in a center of the medical device (Figure 1 shows the space which would be a void).
In regards to Claim 5, Wetzels teaches the frangible insert is configured to constrain and define an inner shape of the structure during processing (Figure 1 shows the structure contacts the insert).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grellou and Wetzels et al, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Helland (2978023).
In regards to Claim 7, while the combination of Grellou and Wetzels essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, including crushing the frangible insert into multiple pieces (Paragraph 43; polystyrene foam, reshapeable), it fails to specifically teach washing the multiple pieces out of the braided medical device with water. Helland, however, teaches that using water to wash out multiple pieces from a structure is well known (Column 3, lines 25-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used water as taught by Helland, so as to dislodge pieces which remain in an easier manner. Spraying water to clean a surface is well known, and the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been more than capable of doing this as taught.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grellou and Wetzels et al, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Renke (20190000608).
In regards to Claim 8, while the combination of Grellou and Wetzels essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, including using a frangible insert, it fails to specifically using a frangible insert capable of being dissolved with water. Renke, however, teaches than when considering frangible inserts, gypsum is a well known material to utilize (Paragraphs 153, 155). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized gypsum as the insert material, so as to provide a harder surface for the braid to formed. The ordinarily skilled artisan would understand gypsum to be a stronger material than polystyrene foam, and would appreciate the ability to improve the strength of the insert while also providing for a more environmentally friendly waste product. In regards to removal with water, Renke teaches in paragraph 155 that when using a gypsum insert, removal is performed with water.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6, 9, and 10 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shaun R Hurley whose telephone number is (571)272-4986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00am - 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://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/SHAUN R HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732