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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the amendments to claim 1 have overcome the prior art of Murphy in view of Bagaoisan. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The stretch-resistant member (122) of Murphy comprises first and second ends (i.e., ends terminating in hooks 338; figs. 51, 52), wherein each of the first and second ends is threaded through the braided portion (i.e., threaded through a central lumen of the braided portion as shown in figs. 51 and 52 ([0131]). Regarding the limitation “and bent back on itself to lock the first and second ends onto a proximal end of the braided portion”, although the hooks 338 are difficult to see in figs. 51 and 52 of Murphy, the term “hook” along with illustrations of “hooks” in figures 10-12 (hook 202) and figure 44 (hook 330 and hook 332) make obvious that each end (hooks 338) bends back on itself in a manner similar to hooks 202, 330 and 332 of Murphy. Each end (338) is considered bent back on itself to lock the first and second ends onto a proximal end (126) of the braided portion since the bent back ends are locked between the proximal end (126) of the braided portion and the coil (108) by the crimped marker band (320) (see [0132]; figs. 51, 52), and thus locked “onto” a proximal end of the braided portion.
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(s) 1, 5, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al. (US 2019/0254676) in view of Bagaoisan (US 2002/0177800). Murphy discloses a vaso-occlusive treatment system, comprising: a delivery assembly (104); and a vaso-occlusive device (106) detachably coupled to the delivery assembly by a delivery assembly junction (200; see fig. 51,52), the vaso-occlusive device comprising a braided portion (106) formed out of one or more wires, the braided portion comprising a packed end bundle (126; fig. 51 – packed into 320), a coiled portion (108) coupled to the braided portion, and an intra-device junction (300-1; fig. 51) coupling the braided portion to the coiled portion, the intra-device junction comprising a stretch-resistant member (122) spanning from the packed end bundle to the delivery assembly junction. The stretch-resistant member comprises first and second ends (i.e., ends terminating in hooks 338), wherein each of the first and second ends is threaded through the braided portion (i.e., threaded through a central lumen of the braided portion as shown in figs. 51 and 52 ([0131]). Regarding the limitation “bent back on itself to lock the first and second ends onto a proximal end of the braided portion”, although the hooks 338 are difficult to see in figs. 51 and 52 of Murphy, the term “hook” along with illustrations of “hooks” in figures 10-12 (hook 202) and figure 44 (hook 330 and hook 332) make obvious that each end (hooks 338) bends back on itself in a manner similar to hooks 202, 330 and 332 of Murphy. Each end is considered bent back on itself to lock the first and second ends onto a proximal end of the braided portion since the bent back ends are locked between the proximal end of the braided portion and the coil by the crimped marker band (320) (see [0132]), and thus “onto” a proximal end of the braided portion.
Murphy does not expressly disclose that the packed end bundle (126) defines an end surface that is oblique to a longitudinal axis of the packed end bundle.
Bagaoisan in the same field of endeavor, namely surgical instruments for treatment of vasculature, teaches that the end surface (520) of a first tubular element (506) may be oblique relative to its longitudinal axis in order to facilitate insertion of the end of the first tubular element into the lumen of a second tubular element (516) (see [0122]; fig. 25). Since the packed end bundle (126; fig. 51) of Murphy, which comprises a tubular braid, is inserted into a marker band (320) (see figs. 51, 52), one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to have modified the prior art of Murphy to construct the packed end bundle (126) with an end surface that is oblique to a longitudinal axis of the packed end bundle in view of Bagaoisan for the predictable result of facilitating easier insertion of the packed end bundle into the marker band during manufacture.
Regarding claim 5, the first and second ends (338) are each terminated within the braided portion (see figs. 51, 52).
Regarding claim 13, the system further comprises a second stretch-resistant member (noting paragraph [0134]; see also fig. 33 or figs. 57, 58), wherein the second stretch-resistant member comprises third and fourth ends (hooks 338, noting [0134] discloses that the distal stretch-resisting member may be anchored similar to 122 in figs. 51, 52; see also end attached to 120 and end attached to 316 in fig. 33).
Regarding claim 17, the packed end bundle (126 in figs. 51, 52) is a proximal end bundle, the coiled portion is a proximal coiled portion, the intra-device junction is a proximal intra-device junction, and the stretch-resistant member is a proximal stretch-resistant member (see figs. 51, 52). The braided portion further comprises a distal packed end bundle (128), wherein the system further comprises: a distal coiled portion (110) coupled to the distal packed end bundle; and a distal intra-device junction coupling the braided portion to the distal coiled portion, the distal intra-device junction comprising a distal stretch-resistant member spanning from the distal packed end bundle to a distal end of the distal coiled portion. In particular, paragraph [0134] states that, while not shown in figs. 51 and 52, the distal end of the vaso-occlusive coil 102 may include a coiled distal portion, with a distal intra-device junction having a distal stretch-resisting member anchored similarly to the stretch resisting member 122 depicted in figs. 51, 52 (similar to fig. 58, the device comprises a proximal stretch-resistant member and a distal stretch-resistant member).
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 KATHLEEN SONNETT HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5, with alternate Fridays off.
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.
KSH 6/2/2026
/KATHLEEN S HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights