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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to the applicant’s communication filed 07/08/2026.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1 – 16 and 18 – 20 are pending in the application.
Claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18 – 20 are amended.
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 15 – 19 in the previous action dated 04/09/2026 have been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments filed 07/08/2026. Specifically, the objection to claims 15 – 19 regarding at least one of the phrases “a piece of expandable foam” and “the piece of expandable foam” have been withdrawn as the appropriate corrections have been made. However, new objections have been set forth below in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “a left atrial appendage” in line 2, “a patient” in line 2, and “an ostium” in line 12, although the lines are understood by the Examiner to mean “the left atrial appendage”, “the patient”, and “the ostium” as each term was previously defined, the Examiner suggests the lines be amended to read “the left atrial appendage”, “the patient”, and “the ostium” for the purpose of maintaining consistent language throughout the claims;
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The rejection of claims 14 and 20 under U.S.C 35 112(b) regarding indefiniteness, recited in the previous action dated 04/09/2026 have been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments filed 07/08/2026. Specifically, the rejection of claim 14, regarding the lack of clarity in the phrase "the piece of expandable foam is not directly attachable to the occlusive implant", and the rejection of claim 20, regarding the dependency on a non-existent claim, have all been withdrawn as the appropriate corrections have been made.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 11, 15 – 16, and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dakin et al (US 2019/0201190 A1) (previously cited) and in view of Larsen et al (US 2014/0142610 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dakin discloses gap sealing system (occluder device) (occluder 800A) (abstract, paragraphs [0045], [0061], [0078 – 0079], and Figs. 3A – 4E) capable of being used with an occlusive implant disposed within a left atrial appendage of a patient (Examiner’s note: it should be understood that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67,190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d150,152,88. With that said, because the system of Dakin is used for sealing gaps between implants and the adjacent tissue walls within the heart, the system of Dakin is capable of being used to seal a gap with an implant within the LAA), comprising:
a piece of expandable foam (occluder 800A with body 810A) (Examiner’s note: as stated in paragraph [0062] body 810A is made up of a shape-memory foam; and a shape-memory foam is expandable) configured to expand from a delivery configuration to an expanded configuration in vivo (Examiner’s note: the preceding limitation is an intended use limitation which requires only that the structure of prior art be capable of functioning in the manner claimed. With that said, because the shape memory foam occluder 800A is a shape-memory foam it is capable of being compressed in a delivery configuration and then expanding back to its original shape in an expanded configuration); and
an anchoring element (fastener / hook 320) extending from the piece of expandable foam (paragraphs [0045] and [0061]) (Examiner’s note: as stated in paragraph [0061] the occluder 800A comprises any features from previously discussed embodiments, which includes the occluder 300 with the fastener 320 / hook 320; therefore, Dakin discloses occluder 800A with the fastener / hook 320 (i.e., the anchoring element) extending from the body of the occluder 800A / body 810A made of foam).
However, Dakin is silent regarding (i) the anchoring element is a helical coil.
As to the above, Larsen teaches an occlusive implant (frame 200) for an LAA comprising a plurality of anchoring elements (fixation anchors 210) comprising helical coils (coiled / framed attachment portion 216) (abstract, paragraphs [0075 – 0080], and Figs. 1 – 9).
It should be understood that Dakin and Larsen are known references in the art that teach anchors for anchoring a device within the body (abstract, paragraphs [0045], [0061], [0078 – 0079], and Figs. 3A – 4E – Dakin ; abstract, paragraphs [0075 – 0080], and Figs. 1 – 9 – Larsen); and the Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have substituted one type of anchor for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and resulted in the modified occluder of Dakin being capable of anchoring itself as intended. The Examiner notes the rejection above is based on KSR int’l Co. V. Teleflex inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), rational B, outlined in MPEP 2143.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to make the anchoring element of Dakin into a helical coil shape based on the teachings of Larsen.
However, the combination above is silent regarding (i) [claim 2] a radiopaque marker coupled to the piece of expandable foam and (ii) [claim 3] wherein the anchoring element is fixedly attached to the radiopaque marker.
As to the above, Dakin further teaches a radiopaque marker coupled to the fastener / hook 320 in a helical shape (i.e., the anchoring element) which is coupled to the piece of expandable foam (occluder body 310; which equates to the occluder body 810A) for the purpose of aiding in guiding and placement of said occluder (paragraph [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anchoring element of the expandable foam 800A of Dakin in view of Larsen to incorporate the radiopaque marker, based on the teachings of paragraph [0077] of Dakin, for the purpose of aiding in guiding and placement of said occluder (paragraph [0077] – Dakin).
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to make the anchoring element of Dakin into a helical coil shape based on the teachings of Larsen. Additionally, Dakin discloses wherein the anchoring element (fastener / hook 320 in a helical shape) is integrally formed with the piece of expandable foam (occluder 800A with body 810A) (Examiner’s note: the fastener / hook 320 in a helical shape and the occluder 800A form a single unit, and thus are integrally formed).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to make the anchoring element of Dakin into a helical coil shape based on the teachings of Larsen. Additionally, Dakin discloses wherein the anchoring element (fastener / hook 320 in a helical shape) is formed from a metallic material, wherein the material is different material than the piece of expandable foam (occluder 800A with body 810A) (Examiner’s note: as stated in paragraph [0045] the fastener / hook 320 in a helical shape is formed of a metallic filament; and as stated in paragraph [0062] the shape memory foam is made up of polyethylene terephthalate).
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to make the anchoring element of Dakin into a helical coil shape based on the teachings of Larsen. Additionally, Dakin discloses further comprising a tubular member (outer sheath 410) (paragraph [0050]) (Examiner’s note: as stated in paragraph [0061] the occluder 800A comprise any features from previously discussed embodiments, which includes delivery system there of; therefore, Dakin discloses using the outer sheath 410 to deliver the occluder 800A (i.e., the expandable foam piece)) sized and configured to deliver the piece of expandable foam to the left atrial appendage (Examiner’s note: the preceding limitation is an intended use limitation which requires only that the structure of the prior art be capable of functioning in the manner claimed. With that said, the outer sheath is capable of delivering the occluder 800A to the LAA).
Regarding claim 8, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to make the anchoring element of Dakin into a helical coil shape based on the teachings of Larsen. Additionally, Dakin discloses wherein the anchoring element (fastener / hook 320 in a helical shape) is configured to engage with the occlusive implant (paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to make the anchoring element of Dakin into a helical coil shape based on the teachings of Larsen.
However, the combination above is silent regarding (i) wherein the anchoring element is configured to pierce tissue of the left atrial appendage.
As to the above, Dakin further teaches in another embodiment an occluder 1200 (which equates to the expandable foam occluder 800A) which comprises a plurality of anchoring elements (hooks 1240; which equate to the fastener / hook 320 in a helical shape) configured to grab onto the implant and the surrounding tissue for the purpose of preventing movement of occluder (i.e., the expandable foam piece) (paragraph [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anchoring elements of the occluder 800A of Dakin in view of Larsen to be configured to pierce tissue for the purpose of preventing movement of occluder (i.e., the expandable foam piece) (paragraph [0070] – Dakin).
Regarding claim 10, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to make the anchoring element of Dakin into a helical coil shape based on the teachings of Larsen. Additionally, Dakin discloses wherein the piece of expandable foam (occluder 800A with body 810A) is formed from a shape memory polymer (polyethylene terephthalate) (paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 11, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to make the anchoring element of Dakin into a helical coil shape based on the teachings of Larsen. Additionally, Dakin discloses wherein the piece of expandable foam (occluder 800A with body 810A) is configured to be disposed alongside the occlusive implant to occlude a gap between the occlusive implant and a side wall of the left atrial appendage (Examiner’s note: the preceding limitation is an intended use limitation which requires only that the structure of the prior art be capable of functioning in the manner claimed. With that said, as stated in paragraph [0077] Dakin states the occluder can be utilized anywhere where it is desirable to create a seal between the periphery of the device and the adjacent body tissue, thus the expandable foam of Dakin is capable of being used in the LAA in the manner claimed).
Regarding claims 15, Dakin discloses a kit (delivery system and occluder 800A) for use in sealing a gap (abstract, paragraphs [0045], [0061], [0078 – 0079], and Figs. 3A – 4E) capable of being used with an occlusive implant disposed within a left atrial appendage of a patient (Examiner’s note: “kit” is defined as a collection of things; and the delivery system and occluder together form “a collection of things”. Furthermore, it should be understood that a preamble is generally not accorded with any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67,190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d150,152,88. With that said, because the system of Dakin is used for sealing gaps between implants and the adjacent tissue walls within the heart, the system of Dakin is capable of being used to seal a gap with an implant within the LAA), comprising:
a first piece of expandable foam (occluder 800A with body 810A) (Examiner’s note: as stated in paragraph [0062] body 810A is made up of a shape-memory foam; and a shape-memory foam is expandable), wherein the piece of expandable foam is configured to expand from a delivery configuration to an expanded configuration in vivo (Examiner’s note: the preceding limitation is an intended use limitation which requires only that the structure of prior art be capable of functioning in the manner claimed. With that said, because the shape memory foam occluder 800A is a shape-memory foam it is capable of being compressed in a delivery configuration and then expanding back to its original shape in an expanded configuration);
wherein the first piece of expandable foam (occluder 800A with body 810A) has a first overall volume (Examiner’s note: occluder 800A has a volume),
a tubular member (outer sheath 410) (paragraph [0050]) (Examiner’s note: as stated in paragraph [0061] the occluder 800A comprise any features from previously discussed embodiments, which includes delivery system thereof; therefore, Dakin discloses using the outer sheath 410 to deliver the occluder 800A (i.e., the expandable foam piece)), wherein the tubular member (outer sheath 410) sized and configured to deliver the piece of expandable foam to the left atrial appendage (Examiner’s note: the preceding limitation is an intended use limitation which requires only that the structure of the prior art be capable of functioning in the manner claimed. With that said, the outer sheath 410 is capable of delivering the occluder 800A (i.e., the first piece of expandable foam) to the LAA as claimed).
a first anchoring element (fastener / hook 320) extending from the piece of expandable foam (paragraphs [0045] and [0061]) (Examiner’s note: as stated in paragraph [0061] the occluder 800A comprises any features from previously discussed embodiments, which includes the occluder 300 with the fastener 320 / hook 320; therefore, Dakin discloses occluder 800A with the fastener / hook 320 (i.e., the anchoring element) extending from the body of the occluder 800A / body 810A made of foam).
However, the embodiment of Dakin above is silent regarding [claims 15 and 20] (i) a second and third expandable foam piece configured to expand from a delivery configuration to an expanded configuration in vivo, (ii) wherein the first, second, and third expandable foam pieces have different volumes, (iii) second expandable foam pieces have a second anchoring element, (iv) a second and third tubular member sized and configured to deliver their respective pieces of expandable foam to the left atrial appendage, (v) wherein the first and second anchoring elements are helical coils.
As to (i) – (iv), Dakin teaches using multiple occluders of different sizes to accommodate multiple different gap sizes present in between the implant and the tissue wall, and further teaches using a separate delivery system, which comprises an outer sheath (i.e., a tubular member) sized and configured to delivery their respective occluders, for the purpose of simultaneously deploying the occluders.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of the embodiment of the occluder 800A to incorporate a second expandable foam piece (i.e., a second occluder 800A) and a third expandable foam piece (i.e., a third occluder 800A) each with a second and third anchoring element, wherein the first, second, and third expandable foam pieces have different volumes for the purpose of being able to seal different sized gaps that require different volumes of foam to effectively seal said gap. Furthermore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the kit of Dakin to further include a second tubular member and a third tubular member to deliver their respective expandable foam pieces, for the purpose of being able to simultaneously deliver the expandable foam pieces. Lastly, the second piece of expandable foam and the third piece of expandable foam are configured to expand from a delivery configuration to an expanded configuration in vivo as they are made from a shape-memory polymer material (the same as the first piece of expandable foam) and thus capable of functioning in the same way as the first piece of expandable foam discussed above.
As to (v), Larsen teaches an occlusive implant (frame 200) for an LAA comprising a plurality of anchoring elements (fixation anchors 210) comprising helical coils (coiled / framed attachment portion 216) (abstract, paragraphs [0075 – 0080], and Figs. 1 – 9).
It should be understood that Dakin and Larsen are known references in the art that teach anchors for anchoring a device within the body (abstract, paragraphs [0045], [0061], [0078 – 0079], and Figs. 3A – 4E – Dakin ; abstract, paragraphs [0075 – 0080], and Figs. 1 – 9 – Larsen); and the Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have substituted one type of anchor for another (for each of the first, second, and third anchoring elements), and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and resulted in the modified occluder of Dakin being capable of anchoring itself as intended. The Examiner notes the rejection above is based on KSR int’l Co. V. Teleflex inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), rational B, outlined in MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 16, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to make the anchoring element of Dakin into a helical coil shape based on the teachings of Larsen. Additionally, Dakin further discloses wherein the piece of expandable foam and the second piece of expandable foam (first and second occluders 800A) are each configured to be disposed alongside the occlusive implant to fill a gap between the occlusive implant and a side wall of the left atrial appendage (Examiner’s note: the preceding limitation is an intended use limitation and requires only that the structure of the prior art be capable of functioning as claimed. With that said, as stated in paragraphs [0077 – 0078] the occluders (i.e., the first and second expandable foam pieces) are used to fill in gaps between any implanted device and the adjacent tissue wall, therefore, the occluders (i.e., the first and second expandable foam pieces) are capable of functioning as claimed).
Regarding claim 19, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to make the anchoring element of Dakin into a helical coil shape based on the teachings of Larsen. Additionally, Dakin further discloses wherein the anchoring element (fastener / hook 320 in a helical shape) is formed from a metallic material (paragraph [0045]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dakin et al (US 2019/0201190 A1) (previously cited) and Larsen et al (US 2014/0142610 A1), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Devellian (US 2005/0070952 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 18, as discussed above, the combination of Dakin and Larsen makes obvious the kit for use in sealing a gap of claim 15. Additionally, Dakin discloses wherein the anchoring element (fastener / hook 320 in a helical shape) is formed of a shape-memory metal (NiTi) (paragraph [0045]).
However, the combination is silent regarding (i) wherein the anchoring element is formed from a shape memory polymer.
As to the above, Devellian teaches an anchoring element (anchor 32) for an occlusive implant formed of a shape memory polymer (abstract and paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anchoring element of Dakin to be formed of shape memory polymer, based on the teachings of Devellian, because shape memory polymers are known materials used to form anchoring elements of occlusive elements used within the body; and it is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to choose form a device out of a material known to be used to form said device, additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification such that the results would be predictable and result in the anchoring element of Dakin being able to couple the occlusion device (i.e., the expandable foam piece) to the prosthesis / implanted device as intended.
Claims 12 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lashinski et al (US 2021/0113212 A1) and in view of Dakin et al (US 2019/0201190 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 12, Lashinski discloses a gap sealing system (occlusion system 100) of for use within a left atrial appendage of a patient (abstract, paragraphs [0270 – 0282], [0464 – 0466], [0470], and Figs. 2A – 3), comprising:
an occlusive implant (implant device 102) disposable within a left atrial appendage of a patient distal of an ostium of the left atrial appendage (paragraph [0270] and Figs. 2A – 3);
a piece of foam (foam insert) (paragraph [0470]); and
wherein the piece of foam (foam insert) is configured fully occlude an ostium of the left atrial appendage (Examiner’s note: the preceding limitation is an intended use limitation which requires only that the structure of prior art be capable of functioning in the manner claimed. With that said, as stated in paragraphs [0470] the foam insert is used to help seal the gaps / voids left by the already deployed implant, therefore, the foam insert is considered to be configured to fully occlude the ostium as claimed).
However, Lashinski is silent regarding (i) wherein the piece of foam is expandable and configured to expand from a delivery configuration to an expanded configuration in vivo, (ii) an anchoring element comprising at least one arm extending distally from the piece of expandable foam in the expanded configuration foam, and (iii) wherein the at least one arm comprises a longitudinally extending portion and a plurality of laterally extending portions each extending radially outward from the longitudinally extending portion in different directions, wherein the plurality of laterally extending portions of the at least one arm is configured to extends into an interior of the occlusive implant in vivo to anchor the piece of expandable foam to the occlusive implant.
As to the above, Dakin teaches a gap sealing system comprising an occlusive implant (heat valve 100; which equates to the occlusive implant device 110 of Lashinski), a piece of expandable foam (occluder 800; which equates to the foam insert of Lashinski) configured to expand from a delivery configuration to an expanded configuration (abstract, paragraphs [0030 – 0031] and [0061 – 0062]) (Examiner’s note: as stated in paragraph [0062] the occluder body is comprised of a shape-memory foam; and shape memory material is capable / configured to expand from a compressed (delivery) configuration to an expanded configuration), and, in another embodiment, an anchoring element (fastener / hook 320) comprising at least one arm (fastener / hook 320 – Fig. 3A) extending distally from the piece of expandable foam in the expanded configuration foam (paragraphs [0045], [0061], and Figs. 3A – 4E) (Examiner’s note: as stated in paragraph [0061] the occluder 800A comprises any features from previously discussed embodiments, which includes the occluder 300 with the fastener 320 / hook 320; therefore, Dakin discloses occluder 800A with the fastener / hook 320 (i.e., the anchoring element) extending from the body of the occluder 800A / body 810A made of foam), wherein the at least one arm (fastener / hook 320 – Fig. 3A) comprises a longitudinally extending portion (straight portion extending from the occluder – looking at Fig. 3A) and a laterally extending portion (curved portion at the distal end of straight portion extending from the occluder – looking at Fig. 3A). Furthermore, in another embodiment, Dakin teaches another anchoring element (barbs 1540) with a plurality of laterally extending portions (laterally extending portions, left / right barb in one of the barbs 1540) (Fig. 15) for the purpose of hooking multiple things (i.e., the prosthetic and the occluder), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fastener / hook 320 with a left and right laterally extending barb for the purpose of allowing the anchor to grab onto both the occlusive implant and the adjacent tissue so that the occlusive implant is more secure (paragraph [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the foam insert of Lashinski to be made from an expandable foam material / a shape-memory material, based on the teachings of Dakin, as the expandable material / shape-memory material is a known material for forming biocompatible foams used for sealing the periphery of an occlusive implant, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have an expectation of success in making such a modification, wherein the results of the modification would be predictable and result in the modified foam insert being able to operate as intended to seal any gaps between the ostium / LAA and the inserted implant device. Furthermore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the foam insert of Lashinski to incorporate an anchoring element, based on the teachings of Dakin, for the purpose of preventing the foam insert from migrating relative to the tissue and the implant (paragraphs [0053] and [0070] – Dakin). It should be understood that the prior art makes obvious adding anchoring element / fastening / hook 320 with a left and right laterally extending hook to the foam insert of Lashinski.
Regarding claim 13, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to modify the foam insert of Lashinski to be formed of a shape memory material and with an anchoring element based on the teachings of Dakin. Additionally, the combination encompasses wherein the laterally extending portion (curved portion at the distal end of fastener / hook 320 x 2) extends laterally from a distal end of the longitudinally extending portion (straight portion extending from the occluder of Dakin) (Fig. 3A of Dakin). Therefore, the combination of the prior art encompasses the limitations above.
Regarding claim 14, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to modify the foam insert of Lashinski to be formed of a shape memory material and with an anchoring element based on the teachings of Dakin. Additionally, the combination encompasses wherein the piece of expandable foam (foam insert of Lashinski) is not directly attachable to the occlusive implant (Examiner’s note: Lashinski does not disclose how the foam insert is connected to the occlusive implant, and the modification made above is such that the anchoring element of Dakin couples / attaches the foam insert to the occlusive implant / adjacent tissue; therefore, the combination encompasses wherein the foam insert is not directly attachable to the occlusive implant since the foam insert is attached via the anchoring element).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/28/2024, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 12, and 15 under Dakin have been considered but are moot as the arguments are directed to Applicant’s amendments, and the previous rejection of the claims has been withdrawn in light of said amendments. Specifically, the rejections were withdrawn because Dakin does not disclose a helical coil anchor nor an occlusive implant disposable in a left atrial appendage. It is noted that a new rejection has been made over Dakin in view of Larsen and, separately, Lashinski in view of Dakin. Wherein the teachings of Larsen and, separately, Lashinski are relied upon for teaching the newly added limitations as discussed above.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Restaino whose telephone number is (571)272-4748. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
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.
/Andrew Restaino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
