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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The independent claims have been amended to recite that the device comprises a panel that at least partially defines the first channel, the second channel, and the open window. Applicant argues that Lin fails to teach the panel as claimed and also fails to teach a third portion of the biological structure is exposed within the open window when the first channel receives the first portion and the second panel receives the second portion.
Regarding the panel, the base 3 has a straight face that positions the channels (ring bodies 1 and 2). This straight face reads on the panel as it is in physical contact with the channels and positions them. Therefore, it partially defines the channels and window.
The window (i.e. space between the rings) reads on the limitation because it creates a space where two portions of the biological structure could meet at a third portion. It is reminded that claims 1 and 9 are apparatus claims. The window of Lin would be capable of performing the intended use.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US PGPUB 2011/0106119 – in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a device (e.g. 100) for performing photochemical tissue bonding on a biological structure (e.g. ¶ 31 describes an anastomosis procedure. While this isn’t a photochemical tissue bonding procedure, this is an apparatus claim and the device of Lin would be capable of performing the photochemical tissue bonding procedure), the device comprising: a panel (e.g. 3) that at least partially defines: a first channel (e.g. Fig. 1, ring body 1) sized to receive a first portion of the biological structure (e.g. Fig. 2A, ring body 1 receives vessel 5); a second channel (e.g. Fig. 1, ring body 2)sized to receive a second portion of the biological structure (e.g. Fig. 2A, ring body 2 receives vessel 6); and an open window (e.g. Fig. 1, between ring body 1 and ring body 2) positioned between the first channel and the second channel (e.g. Fig. 1), such that third portion of the biological structure is exposed within the open window when the first channel receives the first portion and the second channel receives the second portion so that photochemical tissue bonding may be applied to the third portion (e.g. Fig. 1 and 2A).
Regarding claim 2, Lin discloses a second panel (e.g. Fig. 1, there are two structures 3, 4 which read on two panels).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 9 and 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0158342 – in IDS) in view of Lin et al.
Regarding claim 9, Chan discloses a kit and a method for using the kit (e.g. ¶ 164) for performing photochemical tissue bonding on a biological structure (e.g. ¶ 165; for use in photochemical tissue bonding), the kit comprising: a device (e.g. ¶ 165; accessory tools for tissue approximation); and a photoactive dye (e.g. ¶ 125 and 164; a photosensitizer agent). Chan does not explicitly disclose a first channel sized to receive a first portion of the biological structure, a second channel sized to receive a second portion of the biological structure, and an open window positioned between the first channel and the second channel, wherein a third portion of the biological structure is exposed within the open window when the first channel receives the first portion and the second channel receives the second portion wherein the open window is configured for photochemical tissue bonding to be applied to the third portion.
Lin teaches the claimed device as described above. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the kit as taught by Chan with the anastomosis device including the panel as taught by Lin, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of facilitating approximation of two vessels for tissue bonding.
Regarding claim 10, modified Chan discloses the kit of claim 9, and Chan further discloses a light source (e.g. ¶ 143).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. in view of Lin et al. as applied to claims 9 and 15 above, and further in view of Zheng (US PGPUB 2017/0224344 – in IDS).
Regarding claims 12, 13, Chan in view of Lin discloses the kit and method as previously described, but does not explicitly disclose a wrap configured to wrap around the third portion of the biological structure in the window.
Zheng is in the field of sutureless repair of soft tissue defects ( ¶ 1) and teaches a kit (e.g. claim 12), further comprising a wrap (e.g. ¶ 111, 112; collagen-containing patch) configured to wrap around the third portion of the biological structure in the window (e.g. ¶ 112; the collagen-containing patch substantially envelops the tissue defect site). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the kit and method as taught by Chan in view of Lin with the collagen-containing patch as taught by Zheng, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of facilitating the formation of new tissue, thereby facilitating tissue repair (e.g. Zheng ¶ 112-113).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 17 – 20 are allowed.
Claims 3 – 8, 11, and 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach the first panel and the second panel are coupled together and rotatable relative to each other via a hinge as required by claim 3 along with the limitations of claims 1 and 2. Claims 4 – 8 depend upon claim 3. Claim 14 contains the limitation comprising a stand configured to hold the light source, wherein the device includes attachment sites configured to engage the stand to position the light source over the window which is not found in the prior art along with the other limitations of the claims. Claim 15 contains limitations about the panels similar to claim 3.
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 JOSEPH M DIETRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1895. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/JOSEPH M DIETRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights