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 .
Acknowledgments
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 5/28/26. In the reply, the applicant elected, without traverse, Group I, claims 1-16, 22-23 and 26. Claims 1-16,22-23,26,29 are pending with claim 29 being withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/23 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(b). Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the Examiner.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16 and 23 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. The and/or language creates alternative language. Examiner interprets the use of “or” and thus the claim limitations after the indefinite language was not examined.
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.
Claims 1-13, 15-16, 22-23, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Microport Medical Co., Ltd. (EP 2210573) (“Microport”).
Microport discloses: (Fig. 1,2) A stent, comprising at least one stent mesh, wherein each stent mesh comprises a plurality of stent struts 1,1’ sequentially connected circumferentially around the stent mesh, wherein the plurality of the stent struts are sequentially connected end to end, and a joint is formed at the connected ends of adjacent stent struts, and wherein the stent mesh is configured to expand or collapse as a result of widening or narrowing of angles at the joints, wherein the stent strut comprises at least one main section and at least one broadened section 2’,2” (claim 3) that are alternately arranged [0009,0014], wherein the main section has a width smaller than a width of the broadened section, wherein in each stent mesh, the broadened sections of adjacent stent struts are staggered along an axis of the stent mesh [0014], wherein in at least one of the stent struts, a total length of the at least one broadened section accounts (the drug loading slots 3 are distributed on the segments 2) for 5% to 95% of a length of the stent strut [0016-0019], and wherein when the angle at each joint is in a range of 0° to 5°, a metal coverage of the stent mesh ranges from 30% to 99% (the stent is made of metal with the drug-loading slots etched in the outer surface of the stent metal struts [0020]). See Figs. 1 and 2
Claims 2-13: the percentage of the length that the broadened section accounts for on at least one of the stent struts; the angle at each joint; and the percentage of metal coverage of the stent mesh is within the ranges provided in the claims, see Figs. 1-8, [0016-0020]
Claim 15: the stent strut comprises two main sections and one broadened section that is located between the two main sections. Fig. 1
Claim 16: the stent mesh comprises 8 to 24 stent struts (Figs. 1-4)
Claim 22: when the angles at the joints are minimized, in each adjacent stent struts connected to a same joint, the broadened section of one of the stent struts does not overlap with the main section of the adjacent stent strut. (Figs. 1-2) [0013-0014] (segments are nested)
Claim 23: in at least one of stent strut, the broadened section has margins of a same width or different widths beyond the main section at opposite sides of the stent strut along a lengthwise direction thereof (see Figs. 5-8)
Claim 26: the stent comprises at least two stent meshes that are axially connected, wherein the stent comprises at least one linking strut (Figs. 1-4), wherein the linking strut connects the joints in adjacent stent meshes, and wherein a shape of the linking strut comprises at least one of a linear shape, a corrugated shape, a serrated shape, a circular shape, an annular shape, a "t "-like shape and an "S"-like shape.
PNG
media_image1.png
418
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Microport.
Microport discloses the invention as substantially claimed but does not specificially reference the radial strength in kPa of the stent. This is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a radial strength of the stent in a range of 1kPa to 300kPa since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEANNA K HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-2819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am- 4:30pm EST.
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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at 571-272-4965. 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.
/DEANNA K HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights