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 .
Detailed Action
This is in response to the non-provisional application filed 05/14/2025.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 3 recites wherein the first part comprises a plurality of first parts and the second part comprises a plurality of second parts, wherein: the first parts are disposed apart from each other in the circumferential direction; and an outer peripheral length in the circumferential direction per one of the second parts is twice or more than an outer peripheral length in the circumferential direction per one of the first parts.
The Office agrees the art of record fails to teach or suggest these features.
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) 1, 2, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2005/0043679 (Devens, Jr. et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2015/0290434 (Lin)
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6 Devens, Jr. et al. discloses as shown in Figures 1, 7 a balloon for a balloon catheter having a longitudinal axis direction, a radial direction, and a circumferential direction, comprising: a first layer (layer 26, see paragraph [0043]) disposed over the entire 360° in the circumferential direction; and a second layer (layer 28, see paragraph [0043]) composed of a material having a Shore D hardness higher than that of the first layer, wherein the balloon comprises: in a cross-section perpendicular to the longitudinal axis direction, a first part (generally indicated as A) comprising the first layer where the second layer is not disposed on an outer side of the first layer in the radial direction; and a second part (generally indicated as B) comprising the first layer and the second layer where the second layer is disposed on the outer side of the first layer in the radial direction, wherein the first part is disposed in the circumferential direction within a range of 90° or less out of the 360° in the circumferential direction, wherein the first part extends in the longitudinal axis direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
254
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Devens, Jr. et al. fails to disclose the second layer having a Shore D hardness higher than that of the first layer.
Lin, from the same field of endeavor teaches a similar balloon as shown in Figure 1, where a second layer having a Shore D hardness higher than that of the first layer. See paragraph [0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the balloon disclosed by Devens Jr. et al. by substituting the shore hardness of the first and second layer, for the shore hardness values taught by Lin such that the second layer having a Shore D hardness higher than that of the first layer because it would only require the simple substitution of one know alternative configuration for another to produce nothing but predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD G LOUIS whose telephone number is 571-270-1965. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9:30 – 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Jackie Ho at 571-272-4696. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD G LOUIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights