Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 19/072,663

STENT RETENTION

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 06, 2025
Priority
Mar 11, 2020 — provisional 62/988,135 +2 more
Examiner
MCEVOY, THOMAS M
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Advanced Bifurcation Systems Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 12m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allowance Rate
725 granted / 1024 resolved
+10.8% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+35.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
1075
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
53.3%
+13.3% vs TC avg
§102
24.8%
-15.2% vs TC avg
§112
18.5%
-21.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1024 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on August 11th 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. 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. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bar et al. (US 2016/0096308). Regarding claim 1, Bar et al. disclose a method for forming a protective balloon configuration for stent delivery, comprising: providing a stent delivery system comprising a first elongate shaft (85; Figure 1) and a first radially expandable member (75) disposed on a distal portion of the first elongate shaft; inserting the first radially expandable member into a cavity (30 or interior of 20) in a mold (10 or 15 or 20 can be considered as a mold); applying heat and pressure to the first radially expandable member while disposed in the cavity in the mold to form a shape memory portion comprising a first bulbous region (“pillow” - ¶[0033], [0034]); loading a stent onto the first radially expandable member such that an edge of the stent abuts the first bulbous region (¶[0034]; the claim does not require this step to occur after the heating and pressure step); and wherein the first bulbous region is configured to fold over and cover the edge of the stent during delivery (¶[0034] - the portion contacting either stent edge 70b or 70c can be regarded as a folded over portion). Regarding claim 2, the first radially expandable member is a balloon (¶[0032]). Regarding claim 4, the first bulbous region has a diameter (exterior diameter) larger than a diameter (interior diameter) of the stent (Figure 2). Regarding claim 5, the method further comprises forming a second bulbous region on an opposite end of the first radially expandable member from the first bulbous region (the pillow at “75” in Figure 2 can be the first or second bulbous region with the opposite bulbous region being the other of the first or second bulbous region). Regarding claim 6, applying heat and pressure comprises: heating the mold to between 40° C. and 80° C.; and applying pressure between 100 psi and 150 psi to the first radially expandable member (¶[0037]). Regarding claim 7, the first bulbous region comprises a dumbbell shape (the entire balloon shape can be regarded as a dumbbell shape as evident from Figure 2, therefore each bulbous region can be regarded as having a dumbbell shape - noting that Applicant’s bulbous regions do not individually appear to have a classical dumbbell shape). Regarding claim 9, the mold (noting that the entire apparatus 10 can be regarded as the mold since it is a molding apparatus) comprises: a first cavity (e.g. portion of 15 between tubes 20 and 25) having a first diameter; a second cavity (e.g. 35) having a second diameter smaller than the first diameter; and a tapered portion (where ends of arrows are in Figure 1) connecting the first and second cavities (alternatively connector 95 tapers from a larger diameter section to a smaller diameter air line as evident from Figure 1). Regarding claim 10, the method further comprises constraining a portion of the first radially expandable member with a protective sheath (20) during the applying of heat and pressure (10 or 15 being the mold). 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bar et al. (US 2016/0096308). Regarding claim 3, Bar et al. fail to disclose that the shape memory portion is maintained after a plurality of cycles of inflating and deflating the first radially expandable member. However, Bar et al. disclose storing and shipping the stent while mounted on the balloon for later use (¶[0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the shape memory portion so that it is maintained for at least 2 cycles of inflating and deflating so that the balloon would not have to be held in the inflated state during shipment and/or storage. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bar et al. (US 2016/0096308) in view of Bourang (US 2014/0100647). Regarding claim 8, Bar et al. fail to disclose that loading the stent comprises positioning the stent between a proximal radiopaque marker and a distal radiopaque marker on the first elongate shaft. Bourang discloses providing a distal radiopaque marker (3834) on a distal portion of an elongate balloon catheter shaft (3826; Figure 38D) and a proximal radiopaque marker (3836) on a proximal portion of the elongate shaft with a stent (3842) positioned between the markers in order to help visualize the ends of the balloon and help align the balloon during delivery (¶[0175]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and in view of Bourang to have provided a distal and proximal radiopaque marker on the first elongate shaft with the stent positioned therebetween as claimed in order to help visualize the ends of the balloon align the balloon during subsequent delivery. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas McEvoy whose telephone number is (571) 270-5034 and direct fax number is (571) 270-6034. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00 am – 6:00 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, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Elizabeth Houston 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/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. /THOMAS MCEVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 06, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 28, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12765913
PUNCTURE DEVICES AND PUNCTURE SYSTEMS
2y 11m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12758750
EXPANDABLE MEDICAL DEVICES
3y 1m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12746022
CLOT RETRIEVAL SYSTEM
2y 4m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12734054
STENT SYSTEM DEPLOYMENT APPARATUS FOR BIFURCATED LESION
4y 3m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12727881
METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR DELIVERING STAPLES TO A TARGET TISSUE
2y 12m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+35.4%)
3y 7m (~1y 12m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1024 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month