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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/03/25 has been entered. Claims 2, 5, 7- 8, 10 and 15 are amended. Claim 9 is canceled. Claims 2- 8 and 10- 16 are being addressed by this Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Amendment has obviated the claim objections and claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) made in the Non-Final Office Action, mailed 6/04/25. As such, the claim objections and claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) made in the Non-Final Office Action, mailed 6/04/25 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s Remarks, filed 12/03/25, with respect to the rejection of claims 2- 5, 7- 12 and 14- 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 2- 5, 7- 12 and 14- 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) has been withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Application claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Regarding application claim 16, claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,188 claims
A damping device for treating an artery, comprising:
(A method of treating an artery, comprising: wrapping a damping device around at least a portion of a circumference of an exterior surface of the artery) (See claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,188)
a structural member having a pre-set helical shape; and
(a structural member of the damping device has a helical shape) (See claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,188); (The method of claim 15 wherein the structural member is pre-set to have the helical shape in a relaxed configuration) (See claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,188)
a damping member coupled to the structural member,
(the damping member is coupled to the structural member) (See claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,188)
wherein the structural member is configured to be positioned along the artery in the pre-set helical shape such that the damping member at least partially contacts an outer surface of the artery, and wherein least one of the structural member and the damping member is configured to deform in response to a wavefront of blood passing through the artery to thereby attenuate energy of the wavefront
(a structural member of the damping device has a helical shape about the artery and (b) an inner surface of a damping member of the damping device at least partially contacts the exterior surface of the artery; …and wherein the damping member deforms in response to a wavefront of blood passing through the artery and thereby attenuates energy of the wavefront) (See claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,188); (The method of claim 15 wherein the structural member is pre-set to have the helical shape in a relaxed configuration) (See claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,188).
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 2- 8 and 10- 15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art does not teach or suggest, alone or in combination with the remainder of the claim limitations, a dementia treatment and/or slowing device comprising:
a damping member including a strand having a pre-set helical configuration, the strand defining a generally tubular, helical structure having a lumen extending therethrough, the tubular structure has an inner surface configured to abut against an outer wall of a blood vessel and an outer surface, the strand being configured to be wrapped around an artery that supplies blood to the brain, and the strand having first and second opposing free ends.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art does not teach or suggest, alone or in combination with the remainder of the claim limitations, a dementia treatment and/or slowing device comprising:
a structural member and an elastically deformable damping member, the structural member having a helical configuration in the deployed state, and the damping member being positioned radially inwardly of the structural member, the structural member having first and second opposing free ends,
wherein the dementia treatment device is deployable in an externally wrapped configuration around an artery such that an internal diameter of the damping member is smaller than an initial, outer diameter of the artery during a systole stage, but not smaller than an outer diameter of the artery during a diastole stage.
The closest cited prior art reference Giles et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/0052866 A1) device is made of an elastic material (P. [0042]), and as such, there is no motivation to modify the Giles device to have a pre-set helical configuration. See applicant’s Remarks, filed 12/03/25.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Caro et al. (US Pat. No. 7,326,240 B1) discloses external stents (Figs. 1(a)- (c)), but Caro does not teach or suggest first and second opposing free ends.
Harboe et al. (WO 2007/062661 A2) disclose a stent for placement inside a body cavity having a pre-set helical configuration, but Harboe does not teach or suggest a dementia treatment and/or slowing device comprising: a damping member including a strand having a pre-set helical configuration, the strand defining a generally tubular, helical structure having a lumen extending therethrough, the tubular structure has an inner surface configured to abut against an outer wall of a blood vessel and an outer surface, the strand being configured to be wrapped around an artery that supplies blood to the brain, and the strand having first and second opposing free ends.
Mach (US Pub. No. 2010/0030321 A1) discloses a corrugated braid stent graft configured to treat an aortic coarctation (Fig. 15) (P. [0060]), but Mach does not teach or suggest first and second opposing free ends.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 KANKINDI RWEGO whose telephone number is (303)297-4759. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday: 10:00- 5:00 MT.
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, (Jackie) Tan-Uyen Ho can be reached at 571 272-4696. 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.
/KANKINDI RWEGO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771