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 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 1-15 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.
The Examiner is not clear what does the Applicant’s representative is trying to claim in the last two lines of claim 1. For example: line 23 discloses: “define a third apex with the first apex angle”. The third apex that is in a different row that the “first apex” cannot share the first apex angle of the first apex. What does the applicant’s representative try to say? That the “third apex” has a “third apex angle” equal to the “first apex angle”? Also, the Examiner is having the same issue with the “fourth apex”. Correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumazawa et al US Patent Pub. 2017/0266024A1.
Kumazawa et al discloses a stent comprising a plurality of rows of struts extending along the longitudinal axis (See Fig. 2). Each row of struts of the plurality of rows of struts extending around the longitudinal axis and a plurality of rows of connectors (120 or 130), each row of connectors of the plurality of connectors extending between longitudinally adjacent rows of struts (see Fig. 2), wherein the plurality of rows of struts and the plurality of rows of connectors define a plurality of unit cells (See figure below). Each unit cell is defined by a first set of struts of a first row of struts (see figure below) of the plurality of rows of struts, a second set of struts of a second row of struts (see figure below) of the plurality of rows of struts, and two circumferentially adjacent connectors of a row of connectors of the plurality of rows (See figure below). The row of connectors being between the first row of struts and the second row of struts along the longitudinal axis (See Figure 2). Wherein within each unit cell, the first set of struts define a first plurality of apices (See figure below) and the second set of struts define a second plurality of apices (See figure below). Wherein within each unit cell, a first strut and a second strut of the first set of struts define a first apex with a first apex angle (See figure below), and the second strut and a third strut of the first set of struts define a second apex with a second apex angle (See figure below). The second apex angle being less than the first apex angle, and wherein within each unit cell, a fourth strut and a fifth strut of the second set of struts define a third apex with the first apex angle, and the fifth strut and the sixth strut define a fourth apex with the second apex angle (See figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
453
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, see Figs. 1 and 2 and figure above.
Regarding claim 3, see the first and second ends of each unit cell, wherein the first connector has a first end and the second connector comprises the second end, see figure above. Additionally, the first strut is connected indirectly to the first connector and the fourth strut is connected to the second connector indirectly.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, see figure below showing that each peak of the first plurality of peaks is offset from each valley of the second plurality of valleys and to cause each valley of the first plurality of valleys being circumferentially offset from each peak of the second plurality of peaks.
PNG
media_image2.png
469
814
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, see figure above for the peak angle and the valley angle. As shown above, the peak angle is equal to the first apex angle and the remaining number of peaks is equal to the second apex angle. Wherein at least one valley angle is equal to 1st apex angle and a remaining valley angle is equal to 2nd apex angle, see figure above.
Regarding claim 7, see 1st apex angle less or equal to 90 degrees.
Regarding claim 8, the angles of the apices are capable of having less than or equal to 20 degrees of difference.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, each row of struts and each row of connectors are centrosymmetric about the longitudinal axis because each strut and each connector go around the circumference of the longitudinal axis of the stent.
Regarding claim 11, a comparison of the recited process with the prior art processes does NOT serve to resolve the issue concerning patentability of the product. In re Fessman, 489 F2d 742, 180 U.S.P.Q. 324 (CCPA 1974). Whether a product is patentable depends on whether it is known in the art or it is obvious, and is not governed by whether the process by which it is made is patentable. In re Klug, 333 F2d 905, 142 U.S.P.Q. 161 (CCPA 1964). In an ex parte case, product-by-process claims are not construed as being limited to the product formed by the specific process recited. In re Hirao et al., 535 F2d 67, 190 U.S.P.Q. 15, see footnote 3 (CCPA 1976). See also paragraph 61.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, see paragraph 30 disclosing a helical configuration around the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 14, see figure above showing the different lengths of the struts.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumazawa et al US Patent Pub. 2017/0266024A1 in view of Chanduszko US Patent 2018/0214286A1.
Kumazawa et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Kumazawa et al does not disclose a connector extending parallel to the longitudinal axis.
Chanduszko teaches an implant having a plurality of rows connected by a plurality of straight connectors relative to the longitudinal axis of the implant for the purpose of resisting the foreshortening of the implant.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify the diagonal shape of the connectors with the straight configuration in order to resist the foreshortening of the stent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN J STEWART whose telephone number is (571)272-4760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6PM EST.
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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.
/ALVIN J STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 9/22/26
Prosecution Insights