DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restriction
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Hub/Engagement Member Species:
Species A: Figure 10c,d (different depth channels)
Species B: Figure 11c,d,e (donut with sidewall holes)
Species C: Figure 11f,g,h (inner component)
Species D: Figure 11i,j (hub with stopping surface)
Species E: Figure 11k (ball shaped hub with trap)
Species F: Figure 11l,m,n (ring with longitudinal apertures)
Anchor Species:
Species AA: figure 2 (coil with loop)
Species BB: figure 3a,b (coil with middle passive anchor)
Species CC: figure 3c (coil with end passive anchor)
Species DD: figure 4a-d (coil with piercing anchor)
Species EE: figure 5a,b (coil with double sided piercing anchor)
Species FF: figure 5c,d (double coil)
Species GG: figure 6a-g (variable pitch / cross section coil anchor)
Species HH: figure 7a-d (coil with ball end anchor)
Species II: figure 14c,d (integrated anchor)
Species JJ: figure 21a-d (continuous integrated anchor)
Species KK: figure 21e (integrated anchor with tether)
The species are independent or distinct because each species has a distinct structure that will secure the ends of the elongate wire or help to anchor the device. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claims 1, 7-12, 14, are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: Each of the species comprise a distinct structure that requires further search/consideration. The amount of hubs and/or anchors would need to be considered and searched. How an elongate member is secured can be specific to the make of the device. Further, some anchors are continuous with the device while others are different structure. This requires further search/consideration with respect to the applicable prior art. Prior art applicable to one species grouping may not be applicable to others. Therefore the burden exists.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Johnathon Webb on 09/17/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species B, GG, claims 1, 2, 4, 7-13, 15-25. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 3, 5, 6, 14, 20, 26-34 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Of note: It was discussed that claim 27 is directed to a device where each of the elongate members passes through two apertures in the side wall of the ring shaped body of the hub. Since the elected species B has each elongate member extending through one aperture in the side wall and then through proximal/distal apertures of the ring shaped body, the claim is withdrawn. However, a claim directed to one side wall aperture and proximal/distal apertures could be applicable to the elected species.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
Claims 15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 states “a termination element that is defined by proximal end portions of the plurality of elongate members and by distal end portions of the plurality of elongate members, the termination element being located near a proximal end of the device”. It is unclear how the termination element can be defined by both the proximal end portion and distal end portion while also being located near a proximal end. It is unclear if the termination element should be two different termination elements where one of them is located near the proximal end, or how exactly the distal end portion will define the termination element that is located near the proximal end. Since the scope of the termination element is unclear, the claim is indefinite. See interpretations below.
The term “near” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The hub/termination element seems to be located at the distal/proximal end of the device but the claim states the hub is “near” the distal end and the termination is “near the proximal. The specification does support that the hub/termination elements can be near the end respectively, but the extent of “near” is unknown. It is unclear how far spaced from the end would not be considered “near”. Therefore the limitations is considered indefinite. See interpretations below.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the first termination and the second termination element” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 23 is ultimately dependent off of claim 15 which claims “a termination element defined by the proximal/distal end portions of the elongate members”. It is unclear if the termination element of claim 15 was supposed to have first and second termination elements, first and second termination portions corresponding to the proximal/distal portions of the elongate member, or if claim 23 should define the terminations comprises a first termination element and a second termination element, or if the first and second termination elements of claim 23 would be different from the termination element of claim 15. Since the scope of the first and second termination element is clear, the limitations are considered indefinite. See interpretations below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 12, 13, 15-22, 24, 25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102b as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0172927 to Campbell.
As to claim 1, Campbell discloses a device for occluding an aperture in a body of a patient (paragraph 9), comprising: a plurality of elongate members (the portions of wire(s) 101 that form the frame 102, figure 1, paragraph 53, 56); an occlusive component (104) that includes a plurality of first features (112) that are each defined by a first portion (figure 1) of a respective elongate member of the plurality of elongate members, wherein the first features are located in a generally proximal region of the device (figure 1, paragraph 53); a support component (the distal portion of the device comprising the anchors 106, figure 1, paragraph 53) that includes a plurality of second features (106) that are each defined by a second portion (figure 1) of the respective elongate member of the plurality of elongate members, wherein the second features are located in a generally distal region of the device (figure 1, paragraph 53); and a termination element (114/113, figure 1, paragraph 53) that is defined by proximal end portions of the plurality of elongate members and by distal end portions of the plurality of elongate members. Without further limitations of the termination element, the eyelets can read on the termination that are defined by the proximal/distal end portions of the elongate members.
As to claim 2, Campbell discloses an engagement member (180, figure 21a,b, paragraph 80) that aggerates a portion of each elongate member of the plurality of elongate members near a distal end of the device.
As to claim 4, Campbell discloses the engagement member is adapted to engage with a delivery component of a delivery system (paragraph 80, the caps are used for catheter attachment).
As to claim 7, Campbell discloses the termination element is an eyelet (paragraph 53).
As to claims 8, 9 Campbell discloses each of the elongate member of the plurality elongate members is a metal wire (paragraph 56).
As to claim 12, Campbell discloses one or more anchor elements (108/211, figure 1, 25).
As to claim 13, Campbell discloses the one or more anchor elements comprises a frame attachment portion (figure 25, portion of wire that attaches to 106) and an anchor portion (the loop of 211), the frame attachment portion comprising a first portion of a fixation elongate element wrapped multiple times around an elongate member of the plurality of elongate members (figure 25), and the anchor portion comprising an anchor feature for engaging body tissue at a second portion of the fixation elongate element (figure 25).
As to claim 15, Campbell discloses a device for occluding an aperture in a body of a patient (paragraph 9), comprising: a plurality of elongate members (the portions of wire(s) 101 that form the frame 102, figure 1, paragraph 53, 56); an occlusive component (104) that includes a plurality of first features (112) that are each defined by a first portion (figure 1) of a respective elongate member of the plurality of elongate members, wherein the first features are located in a generally proximal region of the device (figure 1, paragraph 53); a support component (the distal portion of the device comprising the anchors 106, figure 1, paragraph 53) that includes a plurality of second features (106) that are each defined by a second portion (figure 1) of the respective elongate member of the plurality of elongate members, wherein the second features are located in a generally distal region of the device (figure 1, paragraph 53); and a termination element (114, figure 1, paragraph 53) that is defined by proximal end portions of the plurality of elongate members and by distal end portions of the plurality of elongate members, the termination element being located near a proximal end of the device (the distal end portions of the elongate are continuous with the proximal portions of the elongate members, which can then help to define the proximal eyelet), a hub component (172/174/180, figure 20h, 21a,b; or 124/148) located near a distal end of the device (the caps can be at the distal end, or the tubes can be near the end since it is adjacent the distal portion of the device where the anchors can extend laterally), the hub component comprising a generally donut shape member through which each of the plurality of elongate member passes (figure 21a, the cap can have the eyelet within the cap so each of the elongate member can pass through the cap, alternatively the 124/148 comprise the elongate member passing through the tube). Any of embodiment of the hub/caps/flexible tube can read on the hub component which will have the donut shape and have an elongate member pass through and can be nearer the distal end of the device than the proximal end.
As to claim 16, Campbell discloses each of the elongate member of the plurality of members passes through the generally donut-shaped member twice (figure 16b, each elongate member passes through the donut-shape member loops around to form the anchor then passes back through the donut-shaped member).
As to claim 17, Campbell discloses the elongate members pivot about the generally donut-shaped member (figure 20h).
As to claim 18, 19, Campbell discloses the generally donut-shaped member includes at least one groove/slot (paragraph 80, figure 21a, the inner complimentary thread shape can define the groove/slot) that guides a portion of an elongate member of the plurality of elongate members.
As to claim 20, Campbell discloses the generally donut-shaped member includes at least one ridge (the end shoulder-like like portion of the hub, figure 16b, 20c) that guides a portion of an elongate member of the plurality of elongate members.
As to claim 21, Campbell discloses a membranous covering (108,109) that covers at least a portion of the device (figure 1).
As to claim 22, Campbell discloses the membranous covering (108,109) covers the occlusive component and the support component at least a portion of the device (figure 1).
As to claim 24, Campbell discloses one or more anchor elements (108/211, figure 1, 25).
As to claim 25, Campbell discloses the one or more anchor elements comprises a frame attachment portion (figure 25, portion of wire that attaches to 106) and an anchor portion (the loop of 211), the frame attachment portion comprising a first portion of a fixation elongate element wrapped multiple times around an elongate member of the plurality of elongate members (figure 25), and the anchor portion comprising an anchor feature for engaging body tissue at a second portion of the fixation elongate element (figure 25).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102b as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0282430 to Thommen.
As to claim 1, Thommen discloses a device for occluding an aperture in a body of a patient (paragraph 8), comprising: a plurality of elongate members (1, paragraph 26, figure 1); an occlusive component (proximal portion of the device that comprises 2) that includes a plurality of first features (outer portions of 11 that form the petals of the flower configuration, paragraph 35, 36, figure 6) that are each defined by a first portion of a respective elongate member of the plurality of elongate members (paragraph 35, 36, figure 6) wherein the first features are located in a generally proximal region of the device paragraph 35, 36, figure 6); a support component (distal portion of the device that comprises 2’) that includes a plurality of second features (outer portions of 13 that form the petals of the flower configuration, paragraph 35, 36, figure 6) that are each defined by a second portion of the respective elongate member of the plurality of elongate members, wherein the second features are located in a generally distal region of the device (outer portions of 11 that form the petals of the flower configuration, paragraph 35, 36, figure 6); and a termination element (3, figure 1, paragraph 29) that is defined by proximal end portions of the plurality of elongate members and by distal end portions of the plurality of elongate members (since the wire are continuous, the entire wire can define the hub 3 at the proximal side).
As to claim 2, Thommen discloses an engagement member (4, figure 1, paragraph28) that aggerates a portion of each elongate member of the plurality of elongate members near a distal end of the device.
As to claim 4, Thommen discloses the engagement member is adapted to engage with a delivery component of a delivery system (paragraph 28, 33).
As to claim 7, Thommen discloses the engagement member the termination element is an eyelet (paragraph 28 the central hole can read on the eyelet).
As to claims 8, 9 Thommen discloses each of the elongate member of the plurality elongate members is a metal wire (paragraph 27).
As to claim 12, Thommen discloses one or more anchoring elements (10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 10-11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0172927 to Campbell in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0244517 to Callaghan.
As to claims 10, 11, Campbell discloses the device above but is silent about the device is formed by cutting a metal tube, or each elongate member of the plurality of members is a portion of a tube. It is to be noted the claim is a device and the product by which it is made is not given patentable weight.
Callaghan teaches a similar device occlusion device) where elongate members can be made cutting a metal tube (paragraph 20) in order to form the desired pattern of elongate members. Callaghan teaches a device can have similar elongate elements be filaments or cut from a tube. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the device of Campbell have the device and elongate members be formed by cutting a metal tube in order to use a known material to from a desired pattern of elongate members.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0282430 to Thommen in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0244517 to Callaghan.
As to claims 10, 11, Thommen discloses the device above but is silent about the device is formed by cutting a metal tube, or each elongate member of the plurality of members is a portion of a tube. It is to be noted the claim is a device and the product by which it is made is not given patentable weight.
Callaghan teaches a similar device occlusion device) where elongate members can be made cutting a metal tube (paragraph 20) in order to form the desired pattern of elongate members. Callaghan teaches a device can have similar elongate elements be filaments or cut from a tube. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the device of Thommen have the device and elongate members be formed by cutting a metal tube in order to use a known material to from a desired pattern of elongate members.
Claims 15, 17-24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0282430 to Thommen in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0078295 to Steiner.
As to claim 15, Thommen discloses a device for occluding an aperture in a body of a patient (paragraph 8), comprising: a plurality of elongate members (1, paragraph 26, figure 1); an occlusive component (proximal portion of the device that comprises 2) that includes a plurality of first features (outer portions of 11 that form the petals of the flower configuration, paragraph 35, 36, figure 6) that are each defined by a first portion of a respective elongate member of the plurality of elongate members (paragraph 35, 36, figure 6) wherein the first features are located in a generally proximal region of the device paragraph 35, 36, figure 6); a support component (distal portion of the device that comprises 2’) that includes a plurality of second features (outer portions of 13 that form the petals of the flower configuration, paragraph 35, 36, figure 6) that are each defined by a second portion of the respective elongate member of the plurality of elongate members, wherein the second features are located in a generally distal region of the device (outer portions of 11 that form the petals of the flower configuration, paragraph 35, 36, figure 6); and a termination element (3, figure 1, paragraph 29) that is defined by proximal end portions of the plurality of elongate members and by distal end portions of the plurality of elongate members (since the wire are continuous, the entire wire can define the hub 3 at the proximal side), the termination element being located near a proximal end of the device (figure 1), a hub component (4) located near a distal end of the device (figure 1), the hub component comprising a generally donut shape member through which each of the plurality of elongate member passes (figure 1, paragraph 27).
If it would not be known that the hub component would have the elongate member passe through, Steiner teaches a similar device (occluder, abstract) having a donut-shaped hub component (20) through which elongate members pass (figure 4, paragraph 51-54) in order to receive and couple the elongate members. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the hub component of Thommen have the elongate member pass through the donut-shape member as taught by Steiner in order to receive and couple the elongate members.
As to claim 17, with the device of Thommen and Steiner above, Steiner further teaches the elongate members pivot about the generally donut-shaped member (paragraph 52).
As to claim 18, 19, with the device of Thommen and Steiner above, Steiner further teaches discloses the generally donut-shaped member includes at least one groove/slot (24, figure 5).
As to claim 20, with the device of Thommen and Steiner above, Steiner further teaches the generally donut-shaped member includes at least one ridge (the widening of 401 can read a ridge, figure 5) that guides a portion of an elongate member of the plurality of elongate members.
As to claim 21, with the device of Thommen and Steiner above, Thommen discloses a membranous covering (2, 2’) that covers at least a portion of the device (figure 1).
As to claim 22, with the device of Thommen and Steiner above, Thommen discloses the membranous covering (2, 2’) covers the occlusive component and the support component at least a portion of the device (figure 1).
As to claim 23, with the device of Thommen and Steiner above, Thommen discloses the membranous covering covers the first and second termination element (figure 1). Without further limitations to the first and second termination element, the occluding body can cover multiple thickened portions 10 which can read on the termination elements.
As to claim 24 with the device of Thommen and Steiner above, Thommen discloses one or more anchor elements (20, figure 1).
Claim 16 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0282430 to Thommen in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0078295 to Steiner as applied to claims 15, 17-24 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2009/0292310 to Chin.
As to claim 16, Thommen as modified by Steiner discloses the device above but is silent about each elongate member of the plurality of elongate members passes through the generally donut-shaped member twice.
Chin teaches a similar device (occluder, abstract) where each elongate member of the plurality of elongate members passes through a hub twice (figure 5, paragraph 32) in order to help form overlapping petals of the support member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for each elongate member of the plurality of elongate members of Thommen as modified by Steiner pass through the generally donut-shaped member twice in order to help form overlapping petals of the support member as desired.
Claim 23 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0172927 to Campbell in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0324538 to Van Orden.
As to claim 23, Campbell discloses the device above but is silent about the membranous covering covers the first termination element and the second termination element.
Van Orden teaches a similar device (sealing device, abstract) comprising a membranous covering covers the first termination element and the second termination element (paragraph 57) to encourage the sealing of the device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time of the invention to have the membranous covering of Cambell cover the first termination element and the second termination element in order to encourage the sealing of the device.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8, 12, 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,744,594. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, with respect to the instant application’s claim 1, the reference patent is directed to a device for occluding an aperture in a body of a patient (claim 1), comprising: a plurality of elongate members (claim 1); an occlusive component (claim 7) that includes a plurality of first features (claim 1) that are each defined by a first portion of a respective elongate member of the plurality of elongate members, wherein the first features are located in a generally proximal region of the device (claim 1); a support component (claim 7) that includes a plurality of second features (claim 1) that are each defined by a second portion of the respective elongate member of the plurality of elongate members, wherein the second features are located in a generally distal region of the device (claim 7); and a termination element (claim 1) that is defined by proximal end portions of the plurality of elongate members and by distal end portions of the plurality of elongate members.
As to the instant application’s claim 8, see reference patent claim 1.
As to the instant application’s claims 12, 13, see reference patent claim 1.
Claims 7, 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,744,594 in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0172927 to Campbell.
As to the instant application’s claim 7, the reference patent is silent about the termination element is an eyelet.
Campbell teaches a similar device (occluder) having a eyelet termination element (paragraph 53) in order to aggregate wires at a proximal end. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the reference patent use an eyelet as the termination element in order to aggregate wires at a proximal end.
As to the instant application’s claim 9, the reference patent is silent about wire is a metal wire.
Campbell teaches a similar device (occluder) where elongate members are metal wires (paragraph 56) in order to use a biocompatible material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the reference patent use a metal wire in order to use a biocompatible material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER J ORKIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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.
/ALEXANDER J ORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights