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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species I in the reply filed on 05/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/20/2026.
Additionally claim 8 is withdrawn as it is directed specifically to species III not elected without traverse.
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 specification 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: interlock mechanism configured to selectively disengage the delivery system from the vessel closure device in claim 21. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as a latch based on [0198] of the instant specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 recites “the intravascular anchor comprises a bioabsorbable material” which is already recited in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ditter (US 20050085852 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 7 Ditter discloses (fig. 1A-3) a vessel closure device for delivering substantially immediate hemostasis at a puncture site in a wall of a blood vessel, the closure device comprising:
an intravascular anchor 108 comprising one or more suture attachment points (eye 109, see fig. 1B and [0022]);
an extravascular cap 114 comprising a lumen (see fig. 2 and [0033]);
a sealant 110 (see [0023]); and
a suture 104 connected to at least one of the one or more suture attachment points 109 of the intravascular anchor 108 (see fig. 1B) and threaded through the lumen of the extravascular cap 114 (see fig. 1B-2) and through the sealant 110 (112 forms part of the suture, see [0025] and fig. 2) to connect the intravascular anchor 108 to the extravascular cap 114 and to the sealant 110 (see fig. 2),
wherein each of the intravascular anchor 108 (see [0022]), extravascular cap 114 (see [0035]), sealant 110 (see [0023], collagen is known to be bioabsorbable), and suture (see [0023]) are formed of bioabsorbable materials.
Regarding claim 5 Ditter further discloses (fig. 1A-3) the suture 104 comprises a distal suture portion 112 and a proximal suture portion (portion proximal 112; see fig. 2 and [0025]).
Regarding claim 6 Ditter further discloses (fig. 1A-3 and 6) a diameter of the lumen (diameter between 592 and wall of 114, see fig. 6) of the extravascular cap 114 is smaller than a diameter of the distal suture portion (see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10 Ditter discloses (fig. 1A-3) a vessel closure device for delivering substantially immediate hemostasis at a puncture site in a wall of a blood vessel, the closure device comprising:
an intravascular anchor 108 comprising one or more suture attachment points (eye 109, see fig. 1B and [0022]);
an extravascular cap 114 comprising a lumen (see fig. 2 and [0033]);
a sealant 110 (see [0023]) comprising a lumen (portion 112 extends through, see fig. 2 and [0026]); and
a suture 104 connected to at least one of the one or more suture attachment points 109 of the intravascular anchor 108 (see fig. 1B) and threaded through the lumen of the extravascular cap 114 (see fig. 1B-2) and through the lumen of sealant 110 (112 forms part of the suture, see [0025] and fig. 2) to connect the intravascular anchor 108 to the extravascular cap 114 and to the sealant 110 (see fig. 2),
wherein the suture 104 comprises a proximal suture portion (portion proximal 112) and a distal suture portion 112 (see fig. 2 and [0025]), wherein the distal suture portion 112 has a diameter greater than a diameter of the lumen of the extravascular cap (diameter between 592 and wall of 114, see fig. 6); wherein the distal suture portion 112 creates an interference fit (via teeth 484, see [0034]) to lock the extravascular cap over the puncture site (see fig. 3 and [0033]).
wherein each of the intravascular anchor 108 (see [0022]), extravascular cap 114 (see [0035]), sealant 110 (see [0023], collagen is known to be bioabsorbable), and suture (see [0023]) are formed of bioabsorbable materials.
Regarding claim 11 Ditter further discloses (fig. 1A-3 and 6) the extravascular cap 114 is formed of flexible material (the extravascular cap includes a flexible finger 592, see [0036] and fig. 6).
Claims 1, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walters (US 20160007977 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Walters discloses (fig. 1-3B) a vessel closure device for delivering substantially immediate hemostasis at a puncture site in a wall of a blood vessel, the closure device comprising:
an intravascular anchor 30 comprising one or more suture attachment points (see fig. 3B and [0066]);
an extravascular cap 60 comprising a lumen (see fig. 2B and [0059]);
a sealant 50 (see [0052]); and
a suture 80 connected to at least one of the one or more suture attachment points of the intravascular anchor 30 (see fig. 3B and [0066]) and threaded through the lumen of the extravascular cap 60 (see fig. 2B and [0059]) and through the sealant 50 (see fig. 2B and [0066]) to connect the intravascular anchor 30 to the extravascular cap 60 and to the sealant 50 (see fig. 2B),
wherein each of the intravascular anchor 30 (see [0060]), extravascular cap 60 (see [0059]), sealant 50 (see [0058]), and suture 80 (see [0057]) are formed of bioabsorbable materials.
Regarding claim 10 Walters discloses (fig. 1-3B) a vessel closure device for delivering substantially immediate hemostasis at a puncture site in a wall of a blood vessel, the closure device comprising:
an intravascular anchor 30 comprising one or more suture attachment points (see fig. 3B and [0066]);
an extravascular cap 60 comprising a lumen (see fig. 2B and [0059]);
a sealant 50 comprising a lumen (see [0052]); and
a suture 80 connected to at least one of the one or more suture attachment points of the intravascular anchor 30 (see fig. 3B and [0066]) and threaded through the lumen of the extravascular cap 60 (see fig. 2B and [0059]) and through the lumen of the sealant 50 (see fig. 2B and [0066]) to connect the intravascular anchor 30 to the extravascular cap 60 and to the sealant 50 (see fig. 2B),
wherein the suture 80 comprises a proximal suture portion (portion proximal 60) and a distal suture portion (portion distal 60), wherein the distal suture portion has a diameter greater than a diameter of the lumen of the extravascular cap (see [0059]); wherein the distal suture portion creates an interference fit to lock the extravascular cap over the puncture site (see [0059]);
wherein each of the intravascular anchor 30 (see [0060]), extravascular cap 60 (see [0059]), sealant 50 (see [0058]), and suture 80 (see [0057]) are formed of bioabsorbable materials.
Regarding claim 15 Walters further discloses (fig. 1-3B) the intravascular anchor comprises an elongate body comprising a flexible member (see [0093]).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditter in view of Pipenhagen et al. (US 20090171387 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ditter discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Ditter further teaches the extravascular cap includes a flexible finger 592 (see [0036] and fig. 6) but is silent regarding the extravascular cap is formed of an elastomeric material.
However Pipenhagen, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches a flexible finger 76 that is elastomeric (see [0044]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ditter to have the flexible finger of the extravascular cap formed of an elastomeric material as taught by Pipenhagen, for the purpose of the finger being able to return to its original expanded configuration after being compressed (see Pipenhagen [0044]) to reengage the teeth.
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditter in view of Jenson et al. (US 20120158044 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Ditter discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 1 and 10. Ditter is silent regarding the sealant comprises polyethylene glycol (PEG).
However Jenson, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches a sealant comprises polyethylene glycol (PEG) as an alternative to collagen (see [0024]).
Therefore, the substitution of one known material (polyethylene glycol as taught in Jenson) for another (collagen as taught in Ditter) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since Jenson teaches that polyethylene glycol is a suitable alternative to collagen and the substitution of the polyethylene glycol as taught in Jenson would have yielded predictable results, namely, a sealing member in Ditter that seals. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditter in view of Khosravi et al. (US 20060034930 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ditter discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Ditter is silent regarding the sealant can expand up to 4 times its original size when introduced to fluids.
However Khosravi, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches a sealing element that can expand up to 4 times its original size when introduced to fluids (see [0077]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ditter to have the sealant can expand up to 4 times its original size when introduced to fluids as taught by Khosravi, for the purpose of being able to swell to fill a larger opening and firmly lock the plug in place (see Khosravi [0074]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditter in view of DeFonzo et al. (US 20220370054 A1).
Regarding claim 21 Ditter discloses (fig. 1A-3) a delivery system for delivering a vessel closure device to provide substantially immediate hemostasis at a puncture site in a wall of a blood vessel (see fig. 1A), the delivery system comprising: a handle assembly 107, the handle assembly comprising: a body having a proximal end, a distal end (see fig. 1A), the implant assembly comprising the vessel closure device of claim 10 (see claim 10 above), and a delivery sheath 256, wherein the vessel closure device is configured to be delivered through the delivery sheath 256 (see [0030]) to the puncture site in the wall of the blood vessel and secured around the puncture site, thereby providing substantially immediate hemostasis (see fig. 2).
Ditter is silent regarding the handle assembly including a lumen extending from the proximal end to the distal end, a first actuator and an elongate opening configured to provide a track for the first actuator, an implant assembly situated in the lumen of the body; a slider and a chamber, wherein the slider of the implant assembly is configured to be engageable with the first actuator, and an interlock mechanism configured to selectively disengage the delivery system from the vessel closure device upon delivery of the vessel closure device to the puncture site in the wall of the blood vessel; the delivery sheath configured to be selectively coupled to the distal end of the handle assembly.
However DeFonzo, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches (fig. 2) a delivery device for a vessel closure device comprising a handle assembly including a body 30 having a lumen extending from the proximal end to the distal end (see fig. 2 and [0098]), a first actuator 37 and an elongate opening 30a configured to provide a track for the first actuator 37 (see fig., 2 and [0101]), an implant assembly situated in the lumen of the body and comprising a slider 36 and a chamber 39, wherein the slider 36 of the implant assembly is configured to be engageable with the first actuator 37 (see [0101]), and an interlock mechanism configured 21 (21 is a latch meeting the interpretation under 112f, see fig. 2 and [0098]) to selectively disengage the delivery system from the vessel closure device upon delivery of the vessel closure device to the puncture site in the wall of the blood vessel (see [0098]); a delivery sheath 220 configured to be selectively coupled to the distal end of the handle assembly (see [0098]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ditter to have the handle assembly including a lumen extending from the proximal end to the distal end, a first actuator and an elongate opening configured to provide a track for the first actuator, an implant assembly situated in the lumen of the body; a slider and a chamber, wherein the slider of the implant assembly is configured to be engageable with the first actuator, and an interlock mechanism configured to selectively disengage the delivery system from the vessel closure device upon delivery of the vessel closure device to the puncture site in the wall of the blood vessel; the delivery sheath configured to be selectively coupled to the distal end of the handle assembly as taught by DeFonzo, for the purpose of being able to more quickly and effectively deliver to closure device to reduce closure time, pressure and widening of the opening (see DeFonzo [0008]).
Claims 2 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters in view of Akerfeldt et al. (US 20020019648 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Walters discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Walters further discloses the intravascular anchor can be flexible (see [0093]) but does not expressly disclose the intravascular anchor comprises an elongate body comprising a flexible member and a keel.
However Akerfeldt, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (fig. 1-5) an intravascular anchor comprises an elongate body comprising a flexible member 12 (see [0036], [0044]) and a keel 11 (see [0032]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Walters to have the intravascular anchor comprises an elongate body comprising a flexible member and a keel as taught by Akerfeldt, for the purpose of reducing risk of puncture of the vessel wall and improving the seal by conforming the shape of the anchor to the vessel wall (see Akerfeldt [0008]).
Regarding claims 16-17, Walters discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Walters does not expressly disclose the intravascular anchor comprises a raised keel located on a central axis of the elongate body and spanning a length of the elongate body; the raised keel comprises one or more suture attachment points.
However Akerfeldt, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (fig. 1-5) an intravascular anchor comprises an elongate body comprising a flexible member 12 (see [0036], [0044]) and a raised keel 11 (see [0032] and fig. 3) located on a central axis of the elongate body (see fig. 1) and spanning a length of the elongate body (rim 12 can just be positioned on the longitudinal sides of the device (see [0032]); the raised keel 11 comprises one or more suture attachment points 13 (see fig. 2 and [0046]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Walters to have the intravascular anchor comprises a raised keel located on a central axis of the elongate body and spanning a length of the elongate body; the raised keel comprises one or more suture attachment points as taught by Akerfeldt, for the purpose of reducing risk of puncture of the vessel wall and improving the seal by conforming the shape of the anchor to the vessel wall (see Akerfeldt [0008]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters in view of Hill et al. (US 20120143243 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Walters discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Walters is silent regarding the suture is a braided suture.
However Hill, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches (fig. 1) a vascular closure device comprising a suture that is a braided suture (see [0068]).
Therefore, the substitution of one known suture (braided as taught in Hill) for another (filament as taught in Walters) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since Hill teaches that braided suture is a suitable alternative and the substitution of the braided suture as taught in Hill would have yielded predictable results, namely, a suture in Walters that connects the elements together. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unplantable over Nash et al. (US 5,700,277).
Regarding claim 10 Nash discloses (fig. 9 and 16-18) a vessel closure device for delivering substantially immediate hemostasis at a puncture site in a wall of a blood vessel, the closure device comprising:
an intravascular anchor 32 comprising one or more suture attachment points 56 (see fig. 9 and col. 6 ln. 5-25);
an extravascular cap 78 comprising a lumen 80 (see fig. 9 and col. 9 ln. 14-25);
a sealant 30 comprising a lumen (portion 34 extends through, see fig. 9 and col. 5 ln. 38-49); and
a suture 34 connected to at least one of the one or more suture attachment points 56 of the intravascular anchor 32 (see fig. 9) and threaded through the lumen of the extravascular cap 78 (see fig. 9 and col. 9 ln. 14-25) and through the lumen of sealant 30 (see fig. 9) to connect the intravascular anchor 32 to the extravascular cap 78 and to the sealant 30 (see fig. 9),
wherein the suture 34 comprises a proximal suture portion (portion proximal 30) and a distal suture portion (portion distal 36, see fig. 9);
wherein each of the intravascular anchor 32 (see col. 1 ln. 66 – col. 2 ln. 26), extravascular cap 78 (see col. 9 ln. 31-40), sealant 30 (see col. 5 ln. 21-37), and suture (see col. 1 ln. 66 – col. 2 ln. 26) are formed of bioabsorbable materials.
Nash is silent regarding the distal suture portion has a diameter greater than a diameter of the lumen of the extravascular cap; the distal suture portion creates an interference fit to lock the extravascular cap over the puncture site.
However Nash teaches of another element 36 described as a disk-like or washer-like element just as 78 is described (see col. 6 ln. 35-44). Nash further teaches that the passageway of 36 collapses radially inward to tightly grasp the suture (see fig. 15 and 18 and col. 7 ln. 1-27). In this configuration the distal suture portion has a diameter greater than a diameter of the lumen of 36 (see fig. 15 and 18 and col. 7 ln. 1-27); the distal suture portion creates an interference fit to lock 36 over the puncture site (see fig. 15 and 18 and col. 7 ln. 1-27).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nash to have component 78 have the passageway collapses radially inward to tightly grasp the suture such that the distal suture portion has a diameter greater than a diameter of the lumen of 78 and the distal suture portion creates an interference fit to lock 78 over the puncture site as taught by Nash, for the purpose of tightly grasping the suture and preventing relative movement therebetween (see Nash col. 7 ln. 1-27).
Regarding claim 11 Nash as modified further discloses (fig. 9 and 16-18) the extravascular cap 78 is formed of flexible material (deformable material, see col. 7 ln. 1-27).
Regarding claim 12 Nash as modified further discloses (fig. 9 and 16-18) the sealant 30 when activated locks the extravascular cap 78 in place and coagulates an access tract of the puncture site providing substantially immediate hemostasis (see col. 9 ln. 14-40).
Regarding claim 14 Nash as modified further discloses (fig. 9 and 16-18) the sealant 30 is threaded onto the suture 34 at a location proximal to the extravascular cap 78 (see fig. 9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is 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, alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious (in addition to the other limitations of claim 22): the interlock mechanism comprises: a first latch; a second latch connected to the first latch via a latch pin; a bolt for securing at least a portion of the proximal suture portion of the suture of the vessel closure device; and a slider in mechanical communication with the bolt, wherein the slider is configured to release the at least a portion of the proximal suture portion of the suture, and wherein release of the at least a portion of the proximal suture portion of the suture disengages the delivery system from the vessel closure device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE H SCHWIKER whose telephone number is (571)272-9503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am-4:00 pm.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at (571) 272-4695. 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.
/KATHERINE H SCHWIKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights