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. Inventive feature It is the examiner’s position, based on the specification and drawings, that applicant’s believed inventive feature is the first and second extension portion 44 , 54 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 4, claims: wherein , when viewed along a radial direction of the cylindrical surface, one end of an edge portion 74 of the bridge portion 72 on a side closer to the first extension portion 44 has a curved shape forming a common tangent (?) with an edge of the first extension portion 74 at a boundary with respect to the first extension portion 74 , and another end of the edge portion of the bridge portion 72 on a side closer to the second extension portion 54 has a curved shape forming a common tangent (?) with an edge of the second extension portion 54 at a boundary with respect to the second extension portion 74 . The examiner has added what is believed to be the correct reference numeral s to claim 4. Upon, analyzing the specification, at least par. 0037, and the drawings, the common tangent is not understood. Below is a drawing showing a tangent to circle. 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, 3-6 , and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Shobayashi (2016/0015541). Shobayashi teaches a stent comprising: a first strut 13 that is arranged along a cylindrical surface and forms a wave shape ((waveform par. 0089) having an amplitude direction (LD) that is an axial direction of the cylindrical surface (see at least figure 3) ; a second strut 13 (see at least figure 3) that is arranged along the cylindrical surface, that forms a wave shape having an amplitude direction that is the axial direction (LD) , and that is adjacent to the first strut in the axial direction (as shown in figure 3) ; a first extension portion (depicted as extension portion past the drawn crest ) that is formed on a first crest (depicted) and extends along a first bisector (depicted) , bisecting the first crest, from both sides with respect to the first bisector toward the second strut, the first crest being at least one of a plurality of crests in the first strut protruding toward the second strut (see at least figure 3) ; a second extension portion that is formed on a second crest (opposite LD direction of the first crest) and extends along a second bisector (self-evident) , bisecting the second crest, from both sides with respect to the second bisector toward the first strut, the second crest being displaced in a circumferential direction with respect to the first crest among a plurality of crests in the second strut protruding toward the first strut side (see depictions above and at least figure 3) ; and a bridge portion 15 extending from the first extension portion to the second extension portion (see at least figure 3) . Claim 3, as depicted, the extension portion s ha ve an elliptical shape (same as applicant’s shape) whose major ax es is the bisector s (depicted). Claim 4, the examiner’s interpretation of the claim language is shown below: Claim 5, shape memory alloy ; see at least par. 0112 super elastic alloy and shape memory treatment. Claim 6, further comprising a coating layer on a surface of the stent ; see at least par. 0132. Claim 8, stent according to claim 6, wherein the coating layer comprises a drug-eluting coating layer ; see at least par. 0132 . 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shobayashi (2016/0015541). Shobayashi teaches a stent as described above, however, is unclear if a thickness of the bridge portion 15 is equal to and uniform with a thickness of the first extension portion or the second extension portion (depicted above) . Par. 0112 of Shobayashi teaches the stent can be manufactured by laser-machining a tube of super elastic alloy. Shobayashi makes no suggestion in the entire document that the thickness of the bridge portions 15 is not equal to and does not have a uniform thickness with one of the first extension portion or the second extension portion (depicted above) . Therefore, it is inherent that the thickness of the bridge portion is equal to and uniform in thickness with one of the first extension portion or the second extension portion due to the constant thickness of the tube the stent is cut from . Under obviousness, Shobayashi teaches the stent can be manufactured by laser-machining a tube of super elastic alloy. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have manufactured the thickness of the bridge portion to have been equal to or uniform in thickness with one of the first extension portion or the second extension portion for the ease of manufacturing said stent from a constant thickness of the tube. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shobayashi (2016/0015541) in view of Armstrong et al (12,232,987). Shobayashi teaches a stent as described above, however, fails to teach a coating layer comprises a ceramic layer. Armstrong et al also teaches a stent which can comprise various coatings including a ceramic layer. See 17:65-18:24, specifically 18:4. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used a coating layer compris ing a ceramic layer as taught by Armstrong et al on the stent of Shobayashi to improve the biocompatibility of the stent and reduce the risk of foreign body reactions and immune responses. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shobayashi (2016/0015541) in view of Weber (2010/0087910). Shobayashi teaches a stent as described above, however, fails to teach w herein a thickness of each of the first strut and the second strut is in a range of from 0.6 times a minimum width B of each of the first strut and the second strut in a direction along the cylindrical surface, to the minimum width B. It is the examiner’s understanding that the thickness T is in a range from 0.6 times a minimum width B to minimum width B . Therefore, the T can equal B. Weber also teaches a stent wherein the struts have a minimum thickness of 100 nanometers and a maximum width of 250 nanometers which falls within applicant’s claimed range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to made the thickness as a function of the width of the first strut and second strut of Shobayashi according to the teachings of Weber to adjust flexibility. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRUCE EDWARD SNOW whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4759 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:30 am - 5:00 pm Monday through Thursday . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Melanie Tyson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712729062 . 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. /BRUCE E SNOW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774