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 with traverse of Group II, claims 17-20 in the reply filed on 01/06/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant argues that Yoon does not disclose “each of the plurality of spaced-apart vertical supports extending from a bottom-most one of the plurality of space-apart horizontal supports to a top-most one of the plurality of spaced-apart horizontal supports”, which is the common technical feature of claims in Groups I and II. This is not found persuasive. Claim 1 does not require the vertical supports need to extend fully from a bottom-most one of the plurality of space-apart horizontal supports to a top-most one of the plurality of spaced-apart horizontal supports. The vertical supports of Yoon still encompass the claimed limitation. . Thus, Groups I and II lack unity of invention.
Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 7-20 is/are pending in the application.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 7-16 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim(s) 17-20 are examined on the merits.
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, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/22/2024 and 01/06/2026 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20, “the ring prior to inserting the sent into the patient” should read -- the ring prior to inserting the [[stent into the patient --.
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 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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma (US PGPUB 20140276336) in view of YANIV (US PGPUB 20180360626).
Regarding claim 17, Sharma discloses a method of using a stent (intragastric device 3600/3700: Abstract; ¶0111, 0114, 0116, and 0563-0564; Figs. 36-37) to treat at least one of reflux disease and obesity of a patient (treating obesity: ¶0004 and 0399), the method comprising:
inserting the stent through a mouth of the patient and into an esophagus of the patient (endoscopically delivering the stent 3600/3700 into GI tract of a patient: ¶0097 and 0104; A person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that mouth and stomach are components of GI tract; thus, Sharma discloses the claimed method step), the stent including a plurality of spaced-apart horizontal supports (horizontal elements 3624/3724: ¶0563-0564 and Figs. 36-37), a plurality of spaced- apart vertical supports (vertical elements 3623/3723: ¶0563-0564 and Figs. 36-37), each of the plurality of spaced-apart vertical supports extending from a bottom-most one of the plurality of spaced-apart horizontal supports to a top-most one of the plurality of spaced-apart horizontal supports (Figs. 36-37).
Sharma does not disclose the stent comprising a plurality of spaced-apart connectors and each connector being positioned between a pair of the plurality of spaced-apart horizontal supports and a pair of the plurality of spaced-apart vertical supports.
In an analogous art for being directed to solve the same problem, providing a stent with high flexibility and/or high conformability, YANIV discloses a stent 1690/1790 comprising a plurality of spaced-apart horizontal supports and a plurality of spaced- apart vertical supports (¶0536 and Figs. 16-17). YANIV further discloses the stent comprising a plurality of spaced-apart connectors 1614/1714 (¶0536) and each connector being positioned between a pair of the plurality of spaced-apart horizontal supports and a pair of the plurality of spaced-apart vertical supports (see annotated Fig. 17 below) for the benefits of providing a flexible connection between segments and providing a stent with high conformability and/or high flexibility (¶0581).
PNG
media_image1.png
548
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma (US PGPUB 20140276336) in view of YANIV (US PGPUB 20180360626), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Belhe (US PGPUB 20100256775).
Regarding claim 18, Sharma/YANIV does not disclose attaching one or more spaced-apart magnets to the stent; however, Sharma discloses the stent is implanted endoscopically into the GI tract of a patient (¶0399).
In the same field of endeavor, a stent to treat obesity, Belhe discloses a stent 137/142 for therapy within a GI system (Abstract, ¶0095-0096; and Figs. 6A-B). Belhe further discloses the stent 137/142 comprising one or more spaced-apart magnets 140 for the benefit of providing an attachment means to facilitate implantation (¶0105 and 0125).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the stent of Sharma/YANIV in view of Belhe by incorporating/attaching one or more spaced-apart magnets, in order to provide an attachment means to facilitate implantation, as suggested in ¶0105 and 0125 of Belhe. Thus, the method of Sharma/YANIV/Belhe comprises attaching one or more spaced-apart magnets to the stent.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma (US PGPUB 20140276336) in view of YANIV (US PGPUB 20180360626), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Knisley (US PGPUB 20130231733).
Regarding claim 19, Sharma further discloses attaching the stent 3600/3700 to a catheter/tube 3621/3721 prior to inserting the stent into the patient (¶0556, 0558, 0563-0564; Figs. 33B, 34B, and 36-37), but Sharma/YANIV does not disclose using adhesive for attaching the stent to a tube.
In an analogous art for being directed to solve the same problem, providing attachment means for securing a stent to a tube, Knisley discloses materials suitable for use in a variety of medical devices, particularly in medical devices adapted to carry or contact blood, including devices implanted or temporally used in the body and devices that carry or contact blood extracorporeally (¶0003). Knisley further discloses a stent 118a/b attached to a tube 114 by any suitable means, including adhesive (¶0138).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the stent of Sharma/YANIV in view of Knisley by attaching the stent to a tube, motivated by the desires to provide suitable means to secure a stent to a tube, as suggested in ¶0138 of Knisley. Thus, Sharma/YANIV/Knisley discloses a method step of attaching the stent to a tube with adhesive prior to inserting the stent into the patient.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma (US PGPUB 20140276336) in view of YANIV (US PGPUB 20180360626), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Noishiki (US PGPUB 20150366653).
Regarding claim 20, Sharma further discloses attaching the stent 3600/3700 to a catheter/tube/ring 3621/3721 prior to inserting the stent into the patient (¶0556, 0558, 0563-0564; Figs. 33B, 34B, and 36-37), but Sharma/YANIV does not disclose attaching the stent to a ring using surgical thread to create a plurality of knots around the stent and the ring prior to inserting the sent into the patient.
In an analogous art for being directed to solve the same problem, securing a stent to a tube/ring and maintaining sufficient strength for medical devices implanted by using/having good durability sutures, Noishiki discloses a suture used for manufacture of a medical device having a sutured site such as a stent graft (Abstract). Noishiki further discloses a stent 53 is sutured to a tube/ring 52 using surgical thread to create a plurality of knots 55 (¶0072 and Figs. 22-23) for the benefits of providing attachment between a stent and a tube/ring and obtaining a seam or knot which do not become bulky and do not loosen, maintaining original shape and strength of the suture (¶0008 and 0072).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the stent of Sharma/YANIV in view of Noishiki by attaching/securing the stent to a tube/ring using surgical thread to create a plurality of knots around the stent and the tube/ring, in order to provide suitable means to secure a stent to a tube/ring and to obtain a seam or knot which do not become bulky and do not loosen, maintaining original shape and strength of the suture, as suggested in ¶0008 and 0072 of Noishiki. Thus, Sharma/YANIV/Noishiki discloses a method step of attaching the stent to a ring using surgical thread to create a plurality of knots around the stent and the ring prior to inserting the sent into the patient.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHU Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00 (PST).
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, SARAH AL-HASHIMI can be reached at (571) 272-7159. 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.
/NHU Q. TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/JESSICA ARBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781