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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davies et al. (US 2008/0183132).
As to claim 1, Davies et al. discloses a method for forming a balloon layer (510 of Fig. 5a) over an expanded balloon base (502 of Fig. 5a) by stretching a tubular balloon layer over the expanded balloon base (see Fig. 5b, 0065- the act of pulling the sleeve over the inflated balloon inherently requires radial expansion (stretching) of the tubular balloon layer).
PNG
media_image1.png
614
878
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Davies states after applying the reinforcement layer, a coating layer (514 of Fig. 5e) is applied to the base balloon, and then fused to the base balloon by heat (see 0068)). The tubular balloon layer is exposed to heat after applying during the fusion step.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tayebi (US 9533126).
As to claim 1, Tayebi discloses a process for reinforcing a medical balloon comprising providing an expanded base balloon (inflating the balloon by introducing pressurized gas or liquid – see col. 7,lines 60-63 and col. 8, lines 33-34) and stretching a tubular balloon layer (reinforcement layer- see col. 7, lines 17-20; col. 7, lines 66-67;col. 8, lines 39-41 and col. 9, lines 25-26).
As to claim 2, Tayebi applies an adhesive onto the balloon, reinforcement sleeve and wrappings to form a bond between the layers, and then hot or radiant air is cure to cure the bonding adhesive (see col. 9, lines 40-46) thereby teaching heating of the balloon layer occurs after the stretching step.
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.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tayebi (US 9533126) in view of Briggs et al. (US 6749584).
The teachings of Tayebi as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Tayebi fails to teach rotating the base balloon during the applying step as required by claim 3.
However, it is known in the art to rotates a tubular substrate during heating to apply heat uniformly around the entire surface of the substrate. Briggs et al. is in the field of balloon devices and is directed to protecting such ballons from damage due to exposure to moisture. Briggs et al. teaches assembling a tubing around a substate and heating the assembly using a heating gun while rotating the assembly (see col. 11, lines 14-19).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of Tayebi to include rotation of the balloon, reinforcement sleeve, and wrappings during the heating step to ensure the entire surface is heated to successfully bond all of the layers on the surface of the substrate. One would have been motivated to do so since both references are directed to heating tubular layers to achieve bonding, where Briggs et al. teaches rotation of the assembly during heating to heat the entire surface and Tayebi teaches a device that is capable of being rotated during the heating step.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tayebi (US 9533126) in view of Stevens et al. (US 2004/0092948).
The teachings of Tayebi as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Tayebi fails to teach the step of applying heat comprises contacting a portion of the tubular balloon layer with a heated die as required by claim 4.
Stevens et al. which is in the field of balloon devices, teaches bonding or welding a balloon to another layer can be performed using heated air, heated dies, and/or laser or RF energy (See 0209). Stevens et al. teaches using heated dies is an alternative method to bonding balloons to other layers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of Tayebi to include heating the balloon, reinforcement sleeve, and wrappings using a heated die as taught by Stevens et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both references are directed to heating balloon assemblies to bond multiple layers, where Stevens et al. teaches using a heated die is a known alternative to using the heated air of Tayebi. It has been established that the mere substitution of one known element for another having the same intended purpose yields predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cachet I Proctor whose telephone number is (571)272-0691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 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, Cleveland Michael can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/CACHET I. PROCTOR/
Examiner
Art Unit 1715
/CACHET I PROCTOR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712