Delivery device for occlusive implants

The examiner rejected every claim using six prior art references. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 12-13, and 16-19 are rejected as anticipated by Perszyk (meaning the examiner believes that single reference discloses every element of those claims). Claims 13-15 face a second anticipation rejection under Barajas. The remaining claims are rejected as obvious combinations of Perszyk with one or more additional references.

The applicant has three months from the mailing date (extendable to six months with fees) to respond. An attorney typically reviews the cited references to determine whether to argue that the claims are patentably distinct, amend the claims to add features not taught by the prior art, or request an examiner interview to narrow the issues. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.