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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by van der Burg US 2022/0143289 A1 (hereinafter van der Burg).
Regarding claim 1, van der Burg discloses an implant 13 (Fig. 15 – implant 13) configured for percutaneous delivery (Par. 34 – “percutaneously implanting an endovascular implant”) for the creation of an arteriovenous fistula (Abstract – “The disclosed implants can be used to create an arteriovenous fistula”), the implant 13 (Fig. 15) comprising:
a proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 15 – proximal implant segment 19) comprising a proximal end (Fig. 15 – left end of segment 19, and Par. 90 – “proximal end of the proximal implant segment 19”), a distal end (Fig. 15 – right end of segment 19, and Par. 90 – “distal end of the proximal implant segment 19”), and an axis extending therethrough (Fig. 15 – the longitudinal axis of segment 19);
a distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 15 – distal implant segment 18) connected to the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 15), the distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 15) comprising a proximal end (Fig. 18 – left end of segment 18, and Par. 90 – “proximal end of the proximal implant segment 18”), a distal end (Fig. 15 – right end of segment 18, and Par. 90 – “distal end of the proximal implant segment 18”), and an axis extending therethrough (Fig. 15 – the longitudinal axis of segment 18); and
a side opening O (see annotated Fig. 15 below) between the distal end of the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 15 – the right end of segment 19) and the proximal end of the distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 15 – the left end of segment 18, and Par. 92 – “the implant 13 may comprise a side opening or port disposed between the proximal implant segment 19 and the distal implant segment 18”);
wherein the implant 13 (Fig. 15) comprises an hourglass shape (Fig. 16A).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
925
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 15 of van der Burg
Regarding claim 2, van der Burg discloses the invention of claim 1. Van der Burg further discloses wherein the side opening O (see annotated Fig. 15 above) is configured to allow blood to flow through the side opening O (see annotated Fig. 15 above) (i) in a first direction along the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 15) from the distal end of the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 15 – right end of segment 19) to the proximal end of the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 15 – left end of segment 19, and Par. 90 – “blood flow may be as follows as described relative to FIG. 15… (ii) flow through the distal end of the proximal implant segment 19 and out the proximal end of the proximal implant segment 19 to flow into the perforator vein (e.g., perforator vein 2) and into the cephalic vein (e.g., superficial vein 1)”), and (ii) in a second direction along the distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 15) from the proximal end of the distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 15 – left end of segment 18) to the distal end of the distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 15 – right end of segment 18, and Par. 90 – “(i) flow through the proximal end of the distal implant segment 18 and out the distal end of the distal implant segment 18 to continue through the artery”).
Regarding claim 3, van der Burg discloses the invention of claim 1. Van der Burg further discloses wherein the implant 13 (Fig. 15) comprises an asymmetric hourglass shape (Fig. 16B).
Regarding claim 8, van der Burg discloses the invention of claim 1. Van der Burg further discloses wherein the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 15) comprises a series of rows of struts 36, 37 (Fig. 16A and Fig. 17A – series of struts 36, 37) arranged substantially circumferentially about the axis of the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 16A and Fig. 17A), wherein adjacent rows of struts 36, 37 (Fig. 16A and Fig. 17A) of said series of rows of struts 36, 37 (Fig. 16A and Fig. 17A) of the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 16A) are connected to one another by no more than one axially extending strut (see annotated Fig. 17E below) arranged substantially along the axis of the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 18A).
PNG
media_image2.png
350
574
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 17E of van der Burg
Regarding claim 9, van der Burg discloses the invention of claim 8. Van der Burg further discloses wherein the distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 15) comprises a series of rows of struts (Fig. 17A – two rows of vertical struts) arranged at least partially circumferentially around the axis of the distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 17A), wherein adjacent rows of struts of said series of rows of struts (Fig. 17A) of the distal implant segment are connected to one another by one or more axially extending struts (Fig. 17A – three axially extending struts) arranged substantially along the axis of the distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 17A).
Regarding claim 10, van der Burg discloses the invention of claim 8. Van der Burg further discloses wherein a majority or all of the one or more axially extending struts (see annotated Fig. 17E above) of the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 17E) are located on a side of the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 17A) aligned with a location of the side opening (see annotated Fig. 15 above and see annotated Fig. 17A above – the bottom view in Fig. 17E shows the axially extending struts align with the location of the annotated side opening).
Regarding claim 11, van der Burg discloses the invention of claim 1. Van der Burg further discloses wherein the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 15) and the distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 15) comprise expandable bodies (Par. 26 – “an intraluminal implant for creating an arterio-venous fistula, comprising: a venous implant segment comprising a first expandable tubular body… and an arterial implant segment comprising a second expandable tubular body”), and wherein the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 18A) is oriented at an angle relative to the distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 18A) when the proximal 19 and the distal implant segments 18 (Fig. 18A) are fully expanded in an at rest configuration (Fig. 15, and Fig. 18A-18B).
Regarding claim 12, van der Burg discloses the invention of claim 1. Van der Burg further discloses wherein the distal end of the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 15 – right end of segment 19) comprises an anastomotic ring 21 (Fig. 18A-18B – anastomotic ring 21).
Regarding claim 13, van der Burg discloses the invention of claim 1. Van der Burg further discloses wherein the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 15) comprise one or more anchors 17 (Fig. 15 – anchors 17) configured to anchor said segment against a wall of a vein or an artery (Fig. 15, and Par. 59 – “Proximal anchor(s) 17 may engage the near wall of deep artery 4 (as shown in FIG. 6B), a wall of deep vein 3, a wall of perforator vein 2, a wall of superficial vein 1, and/or the or any interstitial tissues”).
Regarding claim 14, van der Burg discloses the invention of claim 1. Van der Burg further discloses wherein one or both of the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 15) and the distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 15) are covered with a graft material (Fig. 18A-18B, and Par. 69 – “implant 13 is covered or encapsulated with a biocompatible graft material”).
Regarding claim 15, van der Burg discloses the invention of claim 1. Van der Burg further discloses further comprising one or more axially extending struts 20 (Fig. 17A – connector struts 20) connecting the distal end of the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 17A – right end of segment 19) to the proximal end of the distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 17A – left end of segment 18).
Regarding claim 16, van der Burg discloses the invention of claim 1. Van der Burg further discloses wherein the implant 13 (Fig. 15) is configured to allow retrograde blood flow in the artery 4 (Fig. 15 – artery 4) to (i) flow through the distal end of the distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 15 – left end of segment 18) and out the proximal end of the distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 15 – right end of segment 18, and Fig. 15 – the implant 13 is highly capable of accommodating retrograde blood flow in the artery 4), and (ii) flow through the distal end of the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 15 – right end of segment 19) and out the proximal end of the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 15 – left end of segment 19, and Par. 90 – “blood flow may be as follows as described relative to FIG. 15… (ii) flow through the distal end of the proximal implant segment 19 and out the proximal end of the proximal implant segment 19 to flow into the perforator vein (e.g., perforator vein 2) and into the cephalic vein (e.g., superficial vein 1)”).
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Burg in view of Kopia US 2008/0077070 A1 (hereinafter Kopia).
Regarding claim 4, van der Burg discloses the invention of claim 1. Van der Burg further discloses wherein the implant 13 (Fig. 15) comprises a first longitudinal portion P1 (see annotated Fig. 15 above), a second longitudinal portion P2 (see annotated Fig. 15 above), a third longitudinal portion P3 (see annotated Fig. 15 above), a fourth longitudinal portion P4 (see annotated Fig. 15 above), and a fifth longitudinal portion P5 (see annotated Fig. 15 above), wherein:
the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 15) comprises, in order from its proximal end (Fig. 15 – left end of segment 19) to its distal end (Fig. 15 – right end of segment 19), the first P1 (see annotated Fig. 15 above), second P2 (see annotated Fig. 15 above), third P3 (see annotated Fig. 15 above) and fourth longitudinal portions P4 (see annotated Fig. 15 above);
the distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 15) comprises the fifth longitudinal portion P5 (see annotated Fig. 15 above);
the first longitudinal portion P1 (see annotated Fig. 15 above) has a first diameter (see annotated Fig. 15 above – portion P1 inherently has a first diameter);
the third longitudinal portion P3 (see annotated Fig. 15 above) has a second diameter (see annotated Fig. 15 above – portion P2 inherently has a second diameter);
the fifth longitudinal portion P5 (see annotated Fig. 15 above) has a third diameter (see annotated Fig. 15 above – portion P3 inherently has a third diameter);
the second longitudinal portion P2 (see annotated Fig. 15 above) has a diameter (see annotated Fig. 15 above – portion P2 inherently has a diameter) that transitions along its longitudinal length from the first diameter to the second diameter (see annotated Fig. 15 above – the diameter of portion P1 connects to that of portion P3 via the diameter of portion P2);
the fourth longitudinal portion P4 (see annotated Fig. 15 above) has a diameter (see annotated Fig. 15 above – portion p4 inherently has a diameter) that transitions along its longitudinal length from the second diameter to the third diameter (see annotated Fig. 15 above -t he diameter of portion P3 connects to that of portion P5 via the diameter of portion P4).
However, van der Burg does not explicitly disclose the second diameter is smaller than the first diameter and the third diameter.
Kopia, in the same field of endeavor of arteriovenous shunt (Title), teaches the second diameter 206 (Fig. 2 – third section 206’s diameter) is smaller than the first diameter 204 (Fig. 2 – second section 204’s diameter) and the third diameter 202 (Fig. 2 – first section 202’s diameter, and Par. 28 – “the third section 206 also is preferably configured as a right circular cylinder but with a smaller diameter than the first and second sections 202 and 204”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second diameter of van der Burg’s device to be smaller than the first and third diameter as taught by Kopia, in order to create a pressure drop within the blood that results in the venous side seeing a lower pressure, thereby reducing potential neointima growth (Par. 28 of Kopia).
Regarding claim 5, van der Burg in view of Kopia discloses the invention of claim 4. The combination further discloses wherein the third diameter (see annotated Fig. 15 of van der Burg above – the diameter of portion P5) is smaller than the first diameter (see annotated Fig. 15 of van der Burg above – the diameter of portion P1, and Par. 61 of van der Burg – “the proximal implant segment 19 has a diameter of about 5 mm and the distal implant segment 18 has a diameter of about 4 mm”).
Regarding claim 6, van der Burg in view of Kopia discloses the invention of claim 4. The combination further discloses wherein the side opening O (see annotated Fig. 15 of van der Burg above) extends from at least a portion of the third longitudinal portion P3 (see annotated Fig. 15 of van der Burg above) to at least a portion of the fifth longitudinal portion P5 (see annotated Fig. 15 of van der Burg above).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Burg.
Regarding claim 7, van der Burg discloses the invention of claim 1. Van der Burg further discloses wherein the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 15) is capable of bending or curving relative to the distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 15) between 0 and 90 degrees (Par. 91 – “The proximal implant segment may be angled relative to the axis of the distal implant segment by between about 0 and 90 degrees”) in a direction away from the side opening O (see annotated Fig. 15 above).
However, Van der Burg does not disclose by at least 180 degrees.
It is noted that van der Burg discloses that the implant 13 is made from super elastic tubing (Par. 70 of van der Burg and is consistent with the material disclosed by Applicant in Par. 106 of PG-PUB); therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized that the device of van der Burg, with substantially similar structure and material, is highly capable of bending and curving at least 180 degrees between the proximal and distal implant segment.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Burg in view of Hettel et al. US 2022/0249094 A1 (hereinafter Hettel), as cited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 17, van der Burg discloses an implant 13 (Fig. 15 – implant 13) configured for percutaneous delivery (Par. 34 – “percutaneously implanting an endovascular implant”) for the creation of an arteriovenous fistula (Abstract – “The disclosed implants can be used to create an arteriovenous fistula”), the implant 13 (Fig. 15) comprising:
a proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 15 – proximal implant segment 19) comprising a proximal end (Fig. 15 – left end of segment 19, and Par. 90 – “proximal end of the proximal implant segment 19”), a distal end (Fig. 15 – right end of segment 19, and Par. 90 – “distal end of the proximal implant segment 19”), and an axis extending therethrough (Fig. 15 – the longitudinal axis of segment 19);
a distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 15 – distal implant segment 18) connected to the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 15), the distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 15) comprising a proximal end (Fig. 18 – left end of segment 18, and Par. 90 – “proximal end of the proximal implant segment 18”), a distal end (Fig. 15 – right end of segment 18, and Par. 90 – “distal end of the proximal implant segment 18”), and an axis extending therethrough (Fig. 15 – the longitudinal axis of segment 18);
a side opening O (see annotated Fig. 15 above) between the distal end of the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 15 – the right end of segment 19) and the proximal end of the distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 15 – the left end of segment 18, and Par. 92 – “the implant 13 may comprise a side opening or port disposed between the proximal implant segment 19 and the distal implant segment 18”).
However, van der Burg does not disclose a flow restrictor at or adjacent the side opening, the flow restrictor configured to limit blood flow through the proximal implant segment.
Hettel, in the same field of endeavor of devices for diverting blood flow from a first vessel to a second vessel (Abstract), teaches a flow restrictor 5344 (Fig. 53Ci – tapered longitudinal segment 5344) at or adjacent the side opening 5343 (Fig. 53Cii – window 5343), the flow restrictor 5344 (Fig. 53Ci) configured to limit blood flow through the proximal implant segment 5346 (Fig. 53Ci – longitudinal segment 5346 – the smaller diameter at segment 5342 is capable of reducing blood flow through the segment 5346).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of van der Berg to further include a flow restrictor at the side opening as taught by Hettel, in order to reduce the incoming pressure at the vein. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to recognize that a reduced cross section produces lower pressure and higher flow rate.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Burg in view of Hettel as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kopia.
Regarding claim 18, van der Burg in view of Hettel discloses the invention of claim 17. The combination further discloses wherein the implant 13 (Fig. 15) comprises a first longitudinal portion P1 (see annotated Fig. 15 above), a second longitudinal portion P2 (see annotated Fig. 15 above), a third longitudinal portion P3 (see annotated Fig. 15 above), a fourth longitudinal portion P4 (see annotated Fig. 15 above), and a fifth longitudinal portion P5 (see annotated Fig. 15 above), wherein:
the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 15) comprises, in order from its proximal end (Fig. 15 – left end of segment 19) to its distal end (Fig. 15 – right end of segment 19), the first P1 (see annotated Fig. 15 above), second P2 (see annotated Fig. 15 above), third P3 (see annotated Fig. 15 above) and fourth longitudinal portions P4 (see annotated Fig. 15 above);
the distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 15) comprises the fifth longitudinal portion P5 (see annotated Fig. 15 above);
the first longitudinal portion P1 (see annotated Fig. 15 above) has a first diameter (see annotated Fig. 15 above – portion P1 inherently has a first diameter);
the third longitudinal portion P3 (see annotated Fig. 15 above) has a second diameter (see annotated Fig. 15 above – portion P2 inherently has a second diameter);
the fifth longitudinal portion P5 (see annotated Fig. 15 above) has a third diameter (see annotated Fig. 15 above – portion P3 inherently has a third diameter);
the second longitudinal portion P2 (see annotated Fig. 15 above) has a diameter (see annotated Fig. 15 above – portion P2 inherently has a diameter) that transitions along its longitudinal length from the first diameter to the second diameter (see annotated Fig. 15 above – the diameter of portion P1 connects to that of portion P3 via the diameter of portion P2);
the fourth longitudinal portion P4 (see annotated Fig. 15 above) has a diameter (see annotated Fig. 15 above – portion p4 inherently has a diameter) that transitions along its longitudinal length from the second diameter to the third diameter (see annotated Fig. 15 above -t he diameter of portion P3 connects to that of portion P5 via the diameter of portion P4).
However, the combination does not disclose the second diameter is smaller than the first diameter and the third diameter.
Kopia, in the same field of endeavor of arteriovenous shunt (Title), teaches the second diameter 206 (Fig. 2 – third section 206’s diameter) is smaller than the first diameter 204 (Fig. 2 – second section 204’s diameter) and the third diameter 202 (Fig. 2 – first section 202’s diameter, and Par. 28 – “the third section 206 also is preferably configured as a right circular cylinder but with a smaller diameter than the first and second sections 202 and 204”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second diameter of the combination to be smaller than the first and third diameter as taught by Kopia, in order to create a pressure drop within the blood that results in the venous side seeing a lower pressure, thereby reducing potential neointima growth (Par. 28 of Kopia).
Regarding claim 19, van der Burg in view of Hettel in view of Kopia discloses the invention of claim 18. The combination further discloses wherein the third longitudinal portion P3 (see annotated Fig. 15 of van der Burg above) comprises the flow restrictor 5344 (Fig. 53Ci of Hettel; segment 5344 is interpreted to have a second and third longitudinal portion while the first longitudinal portion is segment 5342, as can be seen by the cell pattern).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Burg in view of Medmastery, “Measuring Dialysis Fistula Materity Using Ultrasound” (hereinafter Medmastery).
Regarding claim 20, van der Burg discloses a method of creating an arteriovenous fistula in a patient (Par. 14 – “disclosed herein is a method of creating an arteriovenous fistula in an arm of a patient…”), comprising:
delivering an intraluminal implant 13 (Fig. 3-6B – implant 13) in a collapsed configuration into the patient (Par. 14 – “delivering an intraluminal implant in a collapsed configuration into the patient”), the intraluminal implant 13 (Fig. 3-15) comprising:
a proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 15 – proximal implant segment 19) comprising a proximal end (Fig. 15 – left end of segment 19, and Par. 90 – “proximal end of the proximal implant segment 19”) and a distal end (Fig. 15 – right end of segment 19, and Par. 90 – “distal end of the proximal implant segment 19”);
a distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 15 – distal implant segment 18) comprising a proximal end (Fig. 18 – left end of segment 18, and Par. 90 – “proximal end of the proximal implant segment 18”) and a distal end (Fig. 15 – right end of segment 18, and Par. 90 – “distal end of the proximal implant segment 18”), wherein the proximal end of the distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 15) is connected to the distal end of the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 15); and
a side opening O (see annotated Fig. 15 above) between the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 15) and the distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 15); and
radially expanding the intraluminal implant 15 (Fig. 6-9) between a vein 1-3 (Fig. 15 – superficial vein 1, perforator vein 2, and deep vein 3) and an artery 4 (Fig. 15 – artery 4), wherein the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 15) extends at least partially through the vein 1-3 (Fig. 15), the distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 15) extends at least partially through the artery 4 (Fig. 15), to cause blood flow in the artery 4 (Fig. 15) to (ii) flow through the distal end of the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 15 – right end of segment 19) and out the proximal end of the proximal implant segment 19 (Fig. 15 – left end of segment 19, and Par. 90 – “blood flow may be as follows as described relative to FIG. 15… (ii) flow through the distal end of the proximal implant segment 19 and out the proximal end of the proximal implant segment 19 to flow into the perforator vein (e.g., perforator vein 2) and into the cephalic vein (e.g., superficial vein 1)”).
However, van der Burg does not disclose to cause retrograde blood flow in the artery (i) flow through the distal end of the distal implant segment and out the proximal end of the distal implant segment.
Medmastery, in the same field of endeavor of fistula (Title), teaches the arteriovenous hand fistula (Fig @ 1:19 below) cause retrograde blood flow (Fig. 1:10 below and transcript @1:10 – “if the flow is moving proximally toward the hand known as a retrograde flow…”) in the artery (Fig. @1:19 below – Steal Phenomenon) (i) flow through radial artery (Fig. @1:19 below).
Since both van der Burg and Medmastery disclose the method to be performed on the vasculature of the human arm (Par. 53 of van der Burg) and Fig @1:19 of Medmastery below, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the technological capability to recognize that the arteriovenous fistula performed by van der Burg can also cause retrograde blood flow in the artery as taught by Medmastery, since Medmastery teaches that it is a known phenomenon in fistulas. Therefore, with the presence of the implant device 13 of van der Burg, the produced retrograde blood flow in the artery 4 (Fig. 15 of van der Burg) would have to travel from the distal end of the distal implant segment 18 to the proximal end of the distal implant segment 18 (Fig. 15 – right to left in artery 4 as opposed to the antegrade blood flow “left to fight” as discussed in Par. 88 of van der Burg). Thus, the limitation is met.
PNG
media_image3.png
1068
1912
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig @1:10 of Medmastery
PNG
media_image4.png
1068
1912
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1:19 of Medmastery
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pilai US 2019/0321600 A1 teaches transvacuolar access methods.
Hartley et al. US 9,060,887 B2 teaches a stent graft with a reduced diameter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUYNH DAO LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, 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.
/QUYNH DAO LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/CATHARINE L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights