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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3 of claim 18, “its distal end” should read “a distal end” for clarity; in line 4 of claim 18, “its proximal end” should read “a proximal end”. 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) 18, 20-22, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teoh et al. (Pub. No 2014/0277092) in view of Freudenthal (Pub. No. 2011/0295303).
Regarding claim 18, Teoh et al. discloses a medical implant (300; [0074]; FIG. 18) comprising: a coil body (308) having a distal end (304), a proximal end (302), and an axial lumen (306), a stretch resistance member (320) with a distal end joining the distal end of the coil body (Annotated FIG. 18 below: the distal end of 320 joins with the distal end of 308), and a proximal end joining an engagement loop (322), wherein the stretch resistance member has a tensioned state (Annotated FIG. 18: the tensioned state of 320 is when 300 is still attached to the pusher assembly 200) and a relaxed state ([0046] when 324 is broken, 300 can be released from 200 and thereby cause 320 to enter the relaxed state), and wherein at the tensioned state, the engagement loop extends proximally outside of the proximal end of the coil body (Annotated FIG. 18: 322 extends out of 308 when 300 is still attached to 200).
PNG
media_image1.png
354
715
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Teoh et al. is silent regarding at the relaxed state, the engagement loop retracts distally inside the axial lumen of the coil body.
Freudenthal teaches in the same field of endeavor of coil delivery (Abstract), and discloses a medical device (1; [0085]; FIGs. 42-53) comprising a coil body (35) comprising an axial lumen (FIG. 42) and an engagement loop (33), where the engagement loop retracts distally inside the axial lumen of the coil body in the relaxed state (FIGs. 42 and 53: before and after attachment, 33 stays within the coil lumen; see figs. 48-53) for the purpose of reducing the profile of the medical device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the engagement loop of Teoh et al. in the relaxed state to retract distally inside the axial lumen of the coil body, as taught by Freudenthal, for the purpose of reducing the profile of the medical device.
Regarding claim 20, Teoh et al. as modified further discloses a stepper band (328) having an axial lumen (Annotated FIG. 18 above: 328 has a lumen that 320 passes through), wherein the stepper band joins the proximal end of the coil body (Annotated FIG. 18: 328 is at the proximal end of 308).
Regarding claim 21, Teoh et al. as modified further discloses at the tensioned state, the engagement loop is configured to extend proximally and longitudinally outside of the stepper band (Annotated FIG. 18: 322 extends proximally and longitudinally out of 328 when 300 is still attached to 200).
Regarding claim 22, Teoh et al. as modified further discloses an anchor band (240) between the proximal end of the stretch resistance member and the engagement loop (Annotated FIG. 18: 240 is between 322 and the proximal end of 320), wherein the anchor band has a greater exterior profile than the axial lumen of the stepper band (Annotated FIG. 18: the width of 240 is greater than the lumen of 328).
Regarding claim 24, Teoh et al. as modified further discloses as the stretch resistance member is at the tensioned state, the anchor band engages the stepper band forming an interference (Annotated FIG. 18: when 300 has not been released from 200, 240 is engaged with 328 through the connection of 320 to prevent the release).
Regarding claim 25, Teoh et al. as modified further discloses as the stretch resistance member is at the relaxed state, the anchor band releases proximally from the stepper band ([0046] when sacrificial link 234 is degraded to cause a break and release 300 from 200, 322 will fall away, thereby causing 322 to release proximally from 328).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RYAN MCGINNITY whose telephone number is (571)272-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-5:30 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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached 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 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.
/JRM/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/KATHLEEN S HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771