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 12/6/2023 has been received and made of record. Note the acknowledged form PTO-1449 enclosed herewith. 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. Currently no claims are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph . Claim Objections Claim s 15-28 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 15 (and thereby dependent claims 16-28), there is an instance of rough grammar in line 7 at “includes a also made of fabric” (wherein a minor amendment such as “includes a flange also made of fabric” will moot this objection); In claim 22 , there is an instance of rough grammar in line 3 at “meshing zonedevoid of fabric” (wherein a minor amendment such as “meshing zone devoid zonedevoid of fabric” will moot this objection); and In claim 23 , there is an instance of rough grammar in lines 3-4 at “ the fabric covering the stent meshings is selected from the list defined by braided polyesters, braided Dacron, PTFE ” (wherein a minor amendment such as “ the fabric covering the stent meshings is selected from the list defined by braided polyesters, braided Dacron, or PTFE ” will moot this objection). Appropriate correction is required. 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 s 15-28 are 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 15 (and thereby dependent claims 16-28) recites the limitation " said flange " in line 8 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 6 recites the limitation " the radial force " in line s 3-4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 7 recites the limitation " the radial force " in line 4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 9 recites the limitation " the radial force " in line 4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding claim 23, the term "preferably" in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention or merely optional and not required. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Appropriate correction is required. Regarding claim 24, the term "preferably" in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention or merely optional and not required. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Appropriate correction is required. Regarding claim 27 (and thereby dependent claim 28), the term "preferably" in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention or merely optional and not required. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Appropriate correction is required. 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) 15 , 17-21, 23 and 25 -28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivancev et al. (US 2012/0197383) in view of Marmur et al. (US 2017/0273809) . Ivancev discloses (see embodiment of Fig. 3 , and an exemplary deployment in Fig. 4 ) a stent graft with guide arrangement comprising the following claim limitations: (claim 1 5 ) A fenestrated endoprosthesis ( 1, as show in Fig. 3) of the thoracic aorta ([0005]; see Fig. 4) comprising a first stent meshing (11) , a main tubular endoprosthesis made of fabric (3) , said main tubular endoprosthesis (3) being integral with said first stent meshing (11) (as shown in Fig. 3; [0027]) , and having an arcuate central part (7) configured to be (i.e., capable of) housed in the aortic arch of a patient ([0005]; see Fig. 4) , said arcuate central part (7) extending between a first end (5) configured to be (i.e., capable of) housed in a portion of the ascending aorta (60, Fig. 4) and a second end (9) configured to be (i.e., capable of) housed in a portion of the descending aorta (64, Fig. 4) , wherein the fenestrated endoprosthesis (1) of the thoracic aorta further includes a flange (50, Fig. 3) also made of fabric ([0030]; graft fabric material disclosed) and associated with a second stent meshing (54, Fig. 3) , said flange (50) provided with a base (i.e., at connection between flange wall 50 and tubular body 3) , said base of the flange (50) being fitted over an aperture (i.e., wall 52 of flange 50 defines an aperture therein through the tubular body 3, as shown in Fig. 3) made on the upper face of the arcuate central part (7) of the main tubular endoprosthesis (3) (as shown in Fig. 3) , said flange (50) being configured to be (i.e., capable of) housed at the base of the patient's supra-aortic trunks (as shown in exemplary Fig. 4) ; (claim 18 ) wherein the second stent meshing (54) further includes an elliptical mesh or a mesh defining the contour of a hyperbolic paraboloid surface (as shown in Fig. 3; [0036]) , at the base of the flange (50) , so as to maintain the aperture made on the upper face of the arcuate central part (7) of the main tubular endoprosthesis (3) (as expressly shown in Fig. 3) ; (claim 19 ) wherein the first stent meshing (11) mainly consists of a plurality of disjointed meshes (as shown in Fig. 3; [0027]) , each extending over the entire circumference of the main tubular endoprosthesis (3) in substantially sinusoidal or zigzag circumvolutions (as shown in Fig. 3) , the radial force of said meshing making it possible to press the main tubular endoprosthesis (3) against the aortic wall and thus reduce the risk of endoleaks , and reinforce the anchoring of the endoprosthesis (1) (as shown in Figs. 3-4; [0027]; first stent portions are expressly self-expanding providing a radially outward expansion force) ; and (claim 23 ) wherein the stent meshings (11/54) are made of a shape memory alloy, preferably a Nickel-Titanium alloy ([0018]; Nitinol expressly disclosed) , and the fabric (3) covering the stent meshings (11/54) is selected from the list defined by braided polyesters, braided Dacron, or PTFE ([0002]; woven Dacron, polyester, and/or PTFE expressly disclosed ) . Ivancev , as applied above, discloses a stent graft with guide arrangement comprising all the limitations of the claim except for the flange being substantially frustoconical in shape , wherein the second stent meshing mainly consists of a plurality of disjointed meshes radially offset from one another, extending over the entire circumference of the flange in substantially sinusoidal or zigzag circumvolutions, the radial force of said meshing making it possible to press the flange against the wall of the base of the supra-aortic trunks and thus reduce the risk of endoleaks , wherein the first stent meshing includes at least one mesh attached to the second stent meshing, so as to prevent plications of the main tubular endoprosthesis, wherein the first stent meshing includes at least one mesh attached to the mesh of the base of the flange, so as to prevent plications of the main tubular endoprosthesis, wherein the first meshing projects onto the flange, wherein the second meshing projects onto the main tubular endoprosthesis, and wherein a Nitinol reinforcement extends along the convex face of the arcuate central part of the main tubular endoprosthesis, and preferably over the entire length of said main tubular endoprosthesis . However, Marmur teaches (see Figs. 4A-4B and 5B) a similar endovascular stent graft with a fatigue-resistant lateral tube comprising a flange (50) being substantially frustoconical in shape (as shown in Figs. 4A and 5B), wherein the second stent meshing (70/84) mainly consists of a plurality of disjointed meshes radially offset from one another, extending over the entire circumference of the flange in substantially sinusoidal or zigzag circumvolutions, the radial force of said meshing making it possible to press the flange against the wall of the base of the supra-aortic trunks and thus reduce the risk of endoleaks (as shown in Figs. 4A and 5B; see Abstract; [0016]; [0056] -[0057]; [0089] ; two meshings 70/84 expressly depicted radially offset from each other about the circumference of the flange with sinusoidal portions 84 and composed from self-expanding material such as Nitinol ), wherein the first stent meshing (88) includes at least one mesh attached to the second stent meshing (70/84) , so as to prevent plications of the main tubular endoprosthesis (as shown in Fig s . 4A and 5B, at junction 60) , wherein the first stent meshing (88) includes at least one mesh attached to the mesh of the base (at 60) of the flange (50) , so as to prevent plications of the main tubular endoprosthesis (as shown in Figs. 4A and 5B, at junction 60) , wherein the first meshing (88) projects onto the flange (50) (as shown in Figs. 4A and 5B, overlap at junction 60) , wherein the second meshing (70/84) projects onto the main tubular endoprosthesis (40) (as shown in Figs. 4A and 5B, overlap at junction 60) , and wherein a Nitinol reinforcement (86, Fig. 4A) extends along the convex face (i.e., upper branch lumen side) of the arcuate central part (7) of the main tubular endoprosthesis (40) (as shown in Figs. 4A and 5B; [0062]-[0063] ; Nitinol structural struts 86 expressly reinforce the proximal end 54 of the lateral tube 50 ) in order to beneficially increase fatigue-resistance of the lateral tube member of a fenestrated stent graft within an aortic arch and further allow for a lower profile in the compressed configuration due to strut linking members not overlapping ( see Abstract; [ 0007 ] ; [0080] ) . 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 device of Ivancev to have the flange being substantially frustoconical in shape, wherein the second stent meshing mainly consists of a plurality of disjointed meshes radially offset from one another, extending over the entire circumference of the flange in substantially sinusoidal or zigzag circumvolutions, the radial force of said meshing making it possible to press the flange against the wall of the base of the supra-aortic trunks and thus reduce the risk of endoleaks , wherein the first stent meshing includes at least one mesh attached to the second stent meshing, so as to prevent plications of the main tubular endoprosthesis, wherein the first stent meshing includes at least one mesh attached to the mesh of the base of the flange, so as to prevent plications of the main tubular endoprosthesis, wherein the first meshing projects onto the flange, wherein the second meshing projects onto the main tubular endoprosthesis, and wherein a Nitinol reinforcement extends along the convex face of the arcuate central part of the main tubular endoprosthesis, and preferably over the entire length of said main tubular endoprosthesis in order to beneficially increase fatigue-resistance of the lateral tube member of a fenestrated stent graft within an aortic arch and further allow for a lower profile in the compressed configuration due to strut linking members not overlapping , as taught by Marmur . Claim(s) 16, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivancev in view of Marmur as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Perkins et al. (US 2018/0153677 ) . Ivancev in view of Marmur , as applied above, discloses a stent graft with guide arrangement comprising all the limitations of the claim except for the second stent meshing mainly consists of a mesh extending over the entire circumference of the flange in substantially sinusoidal or zigzag circumvolutions, the radial force of said meshing making it possible to press the flange against the wall of the base of the supra-aortic trunks and thus reduce the risk of endoleaks ; wherein at least one of the ends of the main tubular endoprosthesis is an apparent meshing zone devoid of fabric; and the fenestrated endoprosthesis comprises radiopaque markers . Regarding claim 16 , Perkins teaches a similar prosthetic assembly comprising a second stent meshing (114, Fig. 4) mainly consists of a mesh extending over the entire circumference of the flange (112, Fig. 4) in substantially sinusoidal or zigzag circumvolutions (as shown in Fig. 4) , the radial force of said meshing (114) making it possible to press the flange (112) against the wall of the base of the supra-aortic trunks and thus reduce the risk of endoleaks ([0040]-[0042]; self-expandable materials and functionality expressly disclosed) in order to beneficially impart structural integrity to the top of the coupling/flange to properly orient the coupling/flange as desired ([0042]) . 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 device of Ivancev in view of Marmur to have a second stent meshing mainly consists of a mesh extending over the entire circumference of the flange in substantially sinusoidal or zigzag circumvolutions, the radial force of said meshing making it possible to press the flange against the wall of the base of the supra-aortic trunks and thus reduce the risk of endoleaks in order to beneficially impart structural integrity to the top of the coupling/flange to properly orient the coupling/flange as desired , as taught by Perkins . Regarding claim 22 , Perkins teaches a similar prosthetic assembly wherein at least one of the ends (110A, Fig. 4) of the main tubular endoprosthesis (108, Fig. 4) is an apparent meshing zone devoid of fabric (as shown in Fig. 4; [0038]; open-web configuration depicted and disclosed) or having fabric ([0038]; closed-web configuration expressly disclosed and shown at 110B in Fig. 4) . Accordingly, Perkins teach es that it is known that an endoprosthesis end devoid of fabric and an endoprosthesis end including fabric are elements that are functional equivalents for providing an endoprosthesis free end enhanced for anchoring and/or sealing the endoprosthesis to the vascular wall ([0038]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have substituted the meshing zone devoid of fabric taught by Perkins for the meshing zone having fabric of Ivancev because both elements were known equivalents for providing an endoprosthesis free end enhanced for anchoring and/or sealing the endoprosthesis to the vascular wall within the endoprosthetic art. The substitution would have resulted in the predictable results of providing an endoprosthesis free end enhanced for anchoring and/or sealing the endoprosthesis to the vascular wall to the device of Ivancev in view of Marmur . Regarding claim 24 , Perkins teaches a similar fenestrated endoprosthesis (102) comprising radiopaque markers ([0056]; radiopaque markers expressly disclosed) in order to beneficially provide for device visualization to verify device positioning during delivery and deployment ([0056]). 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 endoprosthesis of Ivancev in view of Marmur to have radiopaque markers in order to beneficially provide for device visualization to verify device positioning during delivery and deployment, as taught by Perkins . 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