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 Invention I (claims 1-8 and 18) in the reply filed on 12/14/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-17 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/14/25.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 2-3, "the parent vessel" should be –a parent vessel--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 7, " the middle third" should be – a middle third --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 11-12, " the neck borders " should be – a neck borders --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 13, " the first deployed element " should be – a first deployed element --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 14, " the distal component " should be – a distal component --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 16, " the distal segment " should be – a distal segment --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 16-17, " said vessel" should be – said parent vessel --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 17-18, " the proximal segment " should be – a proximal segment --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 18-19, " the second deployed element " should be – a second deployed element --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 21, " the proximal end of said first element " should be – a proximal end of said first deployed element --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 22 and 29, " the second component" should be – the second deployed element --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 26, " the third deployed element " should be – a third deployed element --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 29-30 and 39, " the third component" should be – the third deployed element --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 32, " the central axis" should be – a central axis --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 35, " the first loop" should be – a first loop--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 37, " the fourth deployed element " should be – a fourth deployed element --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 39-40 and 43, " the fourth component" should be – the fourth deployed element --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 44-45, " the device’s detachment and release system " should be --a device detachment and release system --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 1-2, " the diameter of said first component " should be – a diameter of said first deployed element--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 2-3, " the diameter of the parent vessel " should be – a diameter of the parent vessel --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, " the aneurysm neck " should be – an aneurysm neck --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 1-2, " the diameter of said crowns of said second and fourth components " should be – a diameter of said crowns of said second and fourth deployed elements --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, " the mean diameter " should be – a mean diameter --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 3-4, " the segment" should be – a segment--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, " said aneurysm neck " should be –an aneurysm neck --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 1-2, " the diameter of the outermost loops of said third component " should be –a diameter of an outermost loops of said third deployed element --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, " the mean diameter " should be – a mean diameter --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, " the aneurysm neck area " should be – an aneurysm neck area --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, " the area " should be – an area --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 3-4, " said aneurysm neck area " should be – an aneurysm neck area --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 1-2, " said circular point " should be – a circular point --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, " the central point" should be – a central point --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 3-4, " the axial, coronal, and sagittal planes " should be – an axial, coronal, and sagittal planes --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, " the aneurysm neck area " should be – an aneurysm neck area --. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 recites “means for intraoperative endoluminal positioning” which is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The limitation appears to refer to the delivery device for the filamentous material and will be interpreted in this manner.
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: “the device’s detachment and release system” in claim 1.
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.
The claim limitation “the device’s detachment and release system” appears to be referring to the elements used to attach the device with the delivery device.
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 1-8 and 18 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.
In claim 1, “a partially closed ring” in line 15 is indefinite since it is unclear to the examiner if this is the same or different than the guide ring introduced in line 8. Based on the original disclosure it appears to be the same and therefore will be interpreted as being the same component.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an Archimedean spiral" in line 30. It is unclear if applicant is referring to the “spiral barrier” or it’s a different spiral section. For purposes of this action, it will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 5 recites “wherein said third component, referred as said spiral barrier” in lines 1-2, is found indefinite since the third component is not referred to as the spiral barrier. The spiral barrier is introduced in section c of claim 1 and the third component (interpreted as the third deployed element as stated above) is introduced in section g, however there is no mention as it being referred to in this manner.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the first component, referred as the guide ring” in lines 1-2, is found indefinite since the first component is not referred to as the guide ring. The guide ring is introduced in section c of claim 1 and the first component (interpreted as the first deployed element as stated above) is introduced in section e, however there is no mention as it being referred to in this manner.
Claim 8 recites “said third component, referred as said spiral barrier” in lines 1-2, is found indefinite since the third component is not referred to as the spiral barrier. The spiral barrier is introduced in section c of claim 1 and the third component (interpreted as the third deployed element as stated above) is introduced in section g, however there is no mention as it being referred to in this manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-8 and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 1 recites “wherein said distal component comprises a partially closed ring with a small ring at its first free end, oriented towards the distal segment of said vessel, and with its second end directed towards the proximal segment of said parent vessel, seamlessly integrating with the second deployed element of said device,”” on lines 16-18 is claiming the distal and proximal segments of the vessel. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 since it is claiming a part of the human body.
To correct this, the claim should read --wherein said distal component comprises a partially closed ring with a small ring at its first free end, configured to be oriented towards the distal segment of said vessel, and with its second end configured to be directed towards the proximal segment of said parent vessel, seamlessly integrating with the second deployed element of said device,--
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art when considered alone or in combination does not teaches a stent like member having a spiral barrier with the Archimedean spiral nor a guide ring in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANNE DORNBUSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3515. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 9 am-3 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.
/DIANNE DORNBUSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771