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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 07/23/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 17 are independent.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18/073,014, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18/073,014, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for the limitations “wherein rotation of the at least one rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of the trigger wire onto the rotatable inner surface” recited in claim 1, “wherein the inner surface comprises a groove configured to receive a portion of the at least one trigger wire” recited in claim 3, “wherein the at least one rotatable ring comprises first and second rotatable rings and the first rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of the trigger wire onto the inner surface” recited in claim 5, “wherein the at least one rotatable ring comprises first and second rotatable rings and the first rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of a first trigger wire onto the inner surface of the first rotatable ring and the second rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of a second trigger wire onto the inner surface of the second rotatable ring and withdraw the second trigger wire in the distal direction” recited in claim 6, “wherein the at least one rotatable ring comprises a rotatable inner surface onto which the at least one trigger wire is configured to be wound;” recited in claim 11, “wherein the inner surface comprises a groove configured to receive a portion of the at least one trigger wire” recited in claim 13, “wherein the at least one rotatable ring comprises first and second rotatable rings and the first rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of the trigger wire onto the inner surface and withdraw the at least one trigger wire in the distal direction and the second rotatable ring is configured to move the nose cone and top cap proximally to disengage the top cap from the uncovered stent” recited in claim 16, “wherein rotation of the first rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of the first trigger wire onto the rotating inner surface of the first rotatable ring” and “wherein rotation of the second rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of the second trigger wire onto the rotating inner surface of the second rotatable ring” recited in claim 17, and “wherein the first and second inner surfaces each comprises a groove configured to receive a portion of the first and second trigger wires” recited in claim 20. Although the disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18/073,014, describes that the trigger wires may be secured to the inner surface of the first rotatable ring and the second rotatable ring, but it does not disclose rotation of the at least one rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of the trigger wire onto the rotatable inner surface of the rotatable ring.
Therefore, the effective filing date of claims 1-20 is determined to be 06/20/2024.
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 1-20 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 1 recites the limitations “at least one rotatable ring having a rotatable inner surface” and “wherein rotation of the at least one rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of the trigger wire onto the rotatable inner surface.” While the specification discloses that the at least one rotatable ring having a rotatable inner surface and the trigger wires may be secured to the inner surface of the first rotatable ring and the second rotatable ring, it does not describe how the rotation of the at least one rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of the trigger wire onto the rotatable inner surface of the at least one rotatable ring. It is unclear how the trigger wire winds/is able to wind onto the inner surface of a ring. Instead, as described in the specification (Paras. [0127] and [0129]) and shown in Fig. 11 of the instant application, the trigger wires wind around the helical threads or grooves on the outer surface of the main handle when the rotatable rings rotate. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. Claims 2-10 are indefinite for the same reason.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the at least one rotatable ring comprises a rotatable inner surface onto which the at least one trigger wire is configured to be wound.” While the specification discloses that the at least one rotatable ring having a rotatable inner surface and the trigger wires may be secured to the inner surface of the first rotatable ring and the second rotatable ring, it does not describe how the trigger wire is configured to wind onto the rotatable inner surface of the at least one rotatable ring. It is unclear how the trigger wire winds/is able to wind onto the inner surface of a ring. Instead, as described in the specification (Paras. [0127] and [0129]) and shown in Fig. 11 of the instant application, the trigger wires wind around the helical threads or grooves on the outer surface of the main handle when the rotatable rings rotate. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. Claims 12-16 are indefinite for the same reason.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the second rotatable ring is configured to move the nose cone and top cap proximally to disengage the top cap from the uncovered stent.” Instead, the specification describes that it is the rotation of the rear handle 14 causing the proximal movement of the nose cone and top cap. It is unclear how the second rotatable ring (128 or 130) is configured to move the nose cone and top cap proximally to disengage the top cap from the uncovered stent.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “wherein rotation of the first rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of the first trigger wire onto the rotating inner surface of the first rotatable ring” and “wherein rotation of the second rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of the second trigger wire onto the rotating inner surface of the second rotatable ring.” While the specification discloses that the rotatable rings having a rotating inner surface and the trigger wires may be secured to the inner surface of the first rotatable ring and the second rotatable ring, it does not describe how the rotation of the first rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of the first trigger wire onto the rotating inner surface of the first rotatable ring and the rotation of the second rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of the second trigger wire onto the rotating inner surface of the second rotatable ring. It is unclear how the first trigger wire winds/is able to wind onto the inner surface of the first ring and the second trigger wire winds/is able to wind onto the inner surface of the second ring. Instead, as described in the specification (Paras. [0127] and [0129]) and shown in Fig. 11 of the instant application, the trigger wires wind around the helical threads or grooves on the outer surface of the main handle when the rotatable rings rotate. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. Claims 18-20 are indefinite for the same reason.
Response to Arguments
The claim objections and the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to insufficient antecedent basis have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Applicant's arguments regarding the priority benefit on claims 1-20 and the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (as indicated above) filed 07/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the arguments on the priority benefit on claims 1-20 on pages 12-20 of the remarks, while the specification discloses that the at least one rotatable ring having a rotatable inner surface and the trigger wires may be secured to the inner surface of the first rotatable ring and the second rotatable ring, it does not describe how the rotation of the at least one rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of the trigger wire onto the rotatable inner surface of the at least one rotatable ring. It is unclear how the trigger wire winds/is able to wind onto the inner surface of a ring. Instead, as described in the specification (Paras. [0127] and [0129]) and shown in Fig. 11 of the instant application, the trigger wires wind around the helical threads or grooves on the outer surface of the main handle when the rotatable rings rotate. It is not inherent that the trigger wire can wind onto the inner surface of a ring when it is secured to the inner surface of the ring. The inner surface of the ring is circular or round. The picture below shows a cross-section of a circular object/ring with a wire/line connect to the inner surface of the circular object/ring and extending through an opening through the wall of the circular object/ring. As the circular object/ring rotates clockwise, the wire/line is wound on the exterior surface of the object/ring. The wire/line does not wind on the inner surface of the circular object/ring because the inner surface is circular/round while the wire/line may touch an edge/corner at the opening through which the wire/line extends. However, the edge/corner is not considered as an inner surface of the circular object/ring. Furthermore, there may be other things (e.g. as a protruding part) inside the ring for preventing the wire from even touching the edge/corner of the opening. Furthermore, “other suitable attachment mechanisms” for coupling the distal end of the trigger wire to the inner surface does not inherently support that the trigger wire can wind onto the inner surface of a ring (especially the inner surface of the ring is circular) because the specifically does not describe what the other suitable attachment mechanisms are and how those mechanism can allow the trigger wire to wind onto the inner surface of a ring. Regarding claim 16, both paragraphs [0103] and [0131] does not support that the second rotatable ring is configured to move the nose cone and top cap proximally to disengage the top cap from the uncovered stent even though paragraph [0103] describes that “both the first rotatable ring 128 and the second rotatable ring 130 may be used to facilitate retraction and release of any one or more trigger wires, diameter reducing ties or combinations thereof.” Instead, the specification describes that it is the rotation of the rear handle 14 causing the proximal movement of the nose cone and top cap (Para. [0103]). Therefore, the disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18/073,014, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for the limitations “wherein rotation of the at least one rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of the trigger wire onto the rotatable inner surface” recited in claim 1, “wherein the inner surface comprises a groove configured to receive a portion of the at least one trigger wire” recited in claim 3, “wherein the at least one rotatable ring comprises first and second rotatable rings and the first rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of the trigger wire onto the inner surface” recited in claim 5, “wherein the at least one rotatable ring comprises first and second rotatable rings and the first rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of a first trigger wire onto the inner surface of the first rotatable ring and the second rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of a second trigger wire onto the inner surface of the second rotatable ring and withdraw the second trigger wire in the distal direction” recited in claim 6, “wherein the at least one rotatable ring comprises a rotatable inner surface onto which the at least one trigger wire is configured to be wound;” recited in claim 11, “wherein the inner surface comprises a groove configured to receive a portion of the at least one trigger wire” recited in claim 13, “wherein the at least one rotatable ring comprises first and second rotatable rings and the first rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of the trigger wire onto the inner surface and withdraw the at least one trigger wire in the distal direction and the second rotatable ring is configured to move the nose cone and top cap proximally to disengage the top cap from the uncovered stent” recited in claim 16, “wherein rotation of the first rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of the first trigger wire onto the rotating inner surface of the first rotatable ring” and “wherein rotation of the second rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of the second trigger wire onto the rotating inner surface of the second rotatable ring” recited in claim 17, and “wherein the first and second inner surfaces each comprises a groove configured to receive a portion of the first and second trigger wires” recited in claim 20.
PNG
media_image1.png
451
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to the argument(s) on pages 20-22, Claim 1 recites the limitations “at least one rotatable ring having a rotatable inner surface” and “wherein rotation of the at least one rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of the trigger wire onto the rotatable inner surface.” While the specification discloses that the at least one rotatable ring having a rotatable inner surface and the trigger wires may be secured to the inner surface of the first rotatable ring and the second rotatable ring, it does not describe how the rotation of the at least one rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of the trigger wire onto the rotatable inner surface of the at least one rotatable ring. It is unclear how the trigger wire winds/is able to wind onto the inner surface of a ring due to the round nature of the inner surface of the ring. Instead, as described in the specification (Paras. [0127] and [0129]) and shown in Fig. 11 of the instant application, the trigger wires wind around the helical threads or grooves on the outer surface of the main handle when the rotatable rings rotate. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. Claims 2-10 are indefinite for the same reason.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the at least one rotatable ring comprises a rotatable inner surface onto which the at least one trigger wire is configured to be wound.” While the specification discloses that the at least one rotatable ring having a rotatable inner surface and the trigger wires may be secured to the inner surface of the first rotatable ring and the second rotatable ring, it does not describe how the trigger wire is configured to wind onto the rotatable inner surface of the at least one rotatable ring. It is unclear how the trigger wire winds/is able to wind onto the inner surface of a ring due to the round nature of the inner surface of the ring. Instead, as described in the specification (Paras. [0127] and [0129]) and shown in Fig. 11 of the instant application, the trigger wires wind around the helical threads or grooves on the outer surface of the main handle when the rotatable rings rotate. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. Claims 12-16 are indefinite for the same reason.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the second rotatable ring is configured to move the nose cone and top cap proximally to disengage the top cap from the uncovered stent.” both paragraphs [0103] and [0131] does not support that the second rotatable ring is configured to move the nose cone and top cap proximally to disengage the top cap from the uncovered stent even though paragraph [0103] describes that “both the first rotatable ring 128 and the second rotatable ring 130 may be used to facilitate retraction and release of any one or more trigger wires, diameter reducing ties or combinations thereof.” Instead, the specification describes that it is the rotation of the rear handle 14 causing the proximal movement of the nose cone and top cap (Para. [0103]). It is unclear how the second rotatable ring (128 or 130) is configured to move the nose cone and top cap proximally to disengage the top cap from the uncovered stent.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “wherein rotation of the first rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of the first trigger wire onto the rotating inner surface of the first rotatable ring” and “wherein rotation of the second rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of the second trigger wire onto the rotating inner surface of the second rotatable ring.” While the specification discloses that the rotatable rings having a rotating inner surface and the trigger wires may be secured to the inner surface of the first rotatable ring and the second rotatable ring, it does not describe how the rotation of the first rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of the first trigger wire onto the rotating inner surface of the first rotatable ring and the rotation of the second rotatable ring is configured to wind at least a portion of the second trigger wire onto the rotating inner surface of the second rotatable ring. It is unclear how the first trigger wire winds/is able to wind onto the inner surface of the first ring and the second trigger wire winds/is able to wind onto the inner surface of the second ring due to the round nature of the inner surface of the rings. Instead, as described in the specification (Paras. [0127] and [0129]) and shown in Fig. 11 of the instant application, the trigger wires wind around the helical threads or grooves on the outer surface of the main handle when the rotatable rings rotate. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. Claims 18-20 are indefinite for the same reason.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JING RUI OU whose telephone number is (571)270-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am -5:00pm.
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 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.
/JING RUI OU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771