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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 06/30/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US12194199 and US 12133934 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teoh (US 2015/0182226) in view of Lou et al. (CN109385591) and Ishida et al. (US 2008/0185075).
As to claim 1, Teoh discloses a vaso-occlusive device (implant, see abstract) that is formed of a filament made from a platinum core and an outer layer of platinum-tungsten alloy (see 0029). Teoh further states the filament material can contain metals that have significant radio-opacity and that the alloys of the metal can be tailored to achieve a desired blend of flexibility and stiffness (see 0030).
As to claim 11, Teoh discloses a vaso-occlusive device (implant, see abstract) that comprises a layer formed of an alloy having platinum and tungsten (see 0029) and a core (platinum core- see 0029) where the layer is disposed over the core.
Teoh fails to teach the percentage of tungsten in the alloy is equal to or greater than 10% by weight and less than 20% by weight; and where the alloy further comprises zirconium and the percentage of zirconium in the alloy of the layer of the implant is equal to or less than 5% by weight as required by claims 1, 11, and 12.
Lou et al. discloses a medical wire (embolization coil -see abstract, background ) formed from majority platinum-tungsten alloy (see Example 3) where the alloy comprises 10 % of tungsten (see Example 3).Lou et al. teaches the alloy has a tungsten content of 10 %, the alloy will inherently have the Young’s Modulus property of 30Msi or higher as evident by applicant’s disclosure stating a larger percentage (greater than 8%) of tungsten provides the claimed benefit (see 0010 and 0048 of applicant’s disclosure).
Lou et al. fails to teach the alloy comprises zirconium and the zirconium is present at 5wt % of less of the alloy as required by claims 1 and 11-12.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the alloy of Teoh to include the amount of tungsten disclosed by Lou et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to implantable wires formed of platinum/tungsten alloys where Lou et al. further teaches by increasing the tungsten the strength of the wire can be improved which is desired when forming implantable braided wires.
Ishida et al. discloses a medical wire (see 0055) comprised of an alloy comprising tungsten, platinum, and zirconium (See Table 1, 0018). Ishida et al. states the zirconium can be added to an alloy to improve its strength and is added in the range of 0.1-2% to prevent deterioration in ductility of the alloy (see 0041).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the alloy of Teoh to include zirconium as taught by Ishida et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both Teoh and Ishida et al. are directed to medical wires formed of platinum alloys, and Ishida explicitly teaches that zirconium improves alloy strength. Furthermore, Lou teaches that the alloy composition includes platinum and tungsten amounts totaling approximately 99.9%, leaving room for additional alloying elements.
As to claim 2, the alloy will inherently have the Young’s Modulus property as evident by applicant’s disclosure stating a larger percentage (greater than 8%) of tungsten provides the claimed benefit (see 0010 and 0048 of applicant’s disclosure).
As to claim 3 and 13, the alloy comprises 10% of tungsten therefore it inherently has magnetic susceptibility that is within the claimed range as evident by applicant’s disclosure (see 0048).
As to claims 4-6 and 14-16, the alloy will inherently have a greater tensile strength, young’s modulus, and lesser magnetic susceptibility than an alloy having 8% by weight of tungsten as evident by applicant’s disclosure stating a larger percentage of tungsten provides the claimed benefits (see 0010 of applicant’s disclosure).
As to claims 7 and 17, the core and the Pt/W/Zr layer are parts of an elongate member (see filament 16 of Teoh).
As to claims 9 and 19, the elongate member has a coil configuration (see 0028 of Teoh).
As to claims 10 and 20, the elongate member is a wire (see 0025 of Teoh).
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teoh (US 2015/0182226) in view of Lou et al. (CN109385591) and Ishida et al. (US 2008/0185075) as applied to claims 7 and 17 above, and further in view of Murphy et al. (WO2017106265).
The teachings of Teoh, Lou et al., and Ishida et al. as applied to claims 7 and 17 are as stated above.
Teoh, Lou et al., and Ishida et a. fail to teach the elongate member is part of a braid as required by claims 8 and 18.
Murphy et al. teaches a vaso-occlusive device which includes a braided portion formed out of composite wires (see abstract). The composite wire is formed of a metallic core material and an external metallic material different from the core material (see 0030) where the core and external materials have differing radiopacity and stiffness.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the filaments of Teoh to form a braided vaso-occlusive structure as taught by Murphy. One would have been motivated to do so since both Teoh and Murphy are related to vaso-occlusive devices where Murphy further teaches braiding composite core/layer wires provides improved radiopacity, shape retention, and breaking performance (see 0077).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wallace (US 2005/0021072) discloses an implant can be coated with radiopaque materials such as a platinum/tungsten alloy and the alloy can be tailored to provide a desired blend of flexibility and stiffness (see 0049). Porter (US 2005/0090856) discloses a vaso-occlusive device comprised of a coil where the coil can be coated with radiopaque materials. Such as tungsten, platinum, tantalum, or gold (see 0029).
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.
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, Michael Cleveland 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 1712
/CACHET I PROCTOR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights