Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 14/814,383

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CARDIAC REMODELING

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 30, 2015
Examiner
ALEMAN, SARAH WEBB
Art Unit
3774
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Ancora Heart, Inc.
OA Round
12 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
12-13
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
363 granted / 587 resolved
-8.2% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
616
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
45.0%
+5.0% vs TC avg
§102
26.7%
-13.3% vs TC avg
§112
18.2%
-21.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 587 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/4/2025 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant arguments rely on the method illustrated in Figure 36 of Powell, wherein the anchors are attached to the papillary muscles. The arguments fail to address the method illustrated n Fig. 37, wherein Powell clearly states that the anchors are attached to the ventricle wall [0140]. The limitation “a plurality of tissue anchors” is significantly broad to encompass the Powell method in Fig. 37 including two anchors (3610). The locations of the anchors on opposite walls of the ventricle in Fig. 37 meet the broad limitation “at least partially about a circumference of the ventricle.” Applicant argues that reducing a diameter of the ventricle is different than the circumference. Although the Examiner recognizes that a change in diameter may not necessarily change the numerical value of the circumference of the ventricle, the limitation requires “reshaping the circumference.” This language does not necessarily require a reduction in the total circumference, but rather a change in any dimension would change a cross-sectional shape of the ventricle. Therefore, the method of cinching the tether to pull the ventricle walls towards one another taught by Powell (Fig. 37; [0140]) is considered to meet the significantly broad requirement of “reshaping the circumference.” Powell discloses the ventricle is reduced in a direction indicated by arrows in Figure 37). A reduction in this dimension results in a reshaping of the circumference of the ventricle, as any difference in the cross-sectional shape of the ventricle meets the broad requirement. 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 negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 13, and 17-21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Powell et al. (USPAP 2006/0229708) in view of in view of Annest et al. (USPAP 2008/0082132). Regarding claim 1, Powell discloses a method for cardiac remodeling comprising an annuloplasty therapy implant, wherein the annuloplasty therapy implant comprises a clip configured for direct attachment to a leaflet of a cardiac valve (see paragraphs [0141] and [0155] disclosing a mitral valve clip may be deployed/implanted to augment the desired valve function before or after papillary or chordal manipulation, wherein a mitral valve clip is capable of attaching directly to a leaflet of the mitral valve as claimed). Powell discloses positioning a second therapy device (3615) adjacent a wall of the ventricle inferior to the annuloplasty implant and a subannular space of the ventricle (see Figure 37)(inferior to a mitral valve clip deployed/implanted before papillary manipulation), the second therapy device comprising a plurality of tissue anchors (3610) and a tether coupled thereto (Fig. 37; [0140]). The anchors (3610) are secured to the wall of the ventricle (see Fig. 36 or 37), wherein the two locations of the anchors meet the significantly broad requirement of “at least partially about a circumference of the ventricle.” The tether is cinched in the direction indicated by the arrows in Fig. 37 to reshape the circumference of the ventricle [0140], wherein pulling the ventricle walls towards one another is considered to meet the significantly broad requirement of “reshaping the circumference.” Powell teaches that the mitral valve clip (first therapy device) may be deployed/implanted before the steps of papillary or chordal manipulation (see paragraphs [0141] and [0155]), but Powell fails to explicitly disclose that the mitral valve clip is pre-existing. (The Examiner notes that the term “pre-existing” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation to encompass any period of time in which an implant has been implanted in a patient). Annest discloses another method of reconfiguring the wall (W) of the ventricle by securing a second therapy device comprising plurality of tissue anchors (septal anchor 48 and wall anchor 50) coupled by a tether (tension member 52) [0049]. Annest discloses the location of the second therapy device is at an inferior portion of the ventricle, below the mitral valve (see Figure 4A-5A). Annest teaches that the second therapy device can be included with other surgical therapies, such as augmenting or replacing a valve surgery [0045]. Annest goes on to teach that the methods of ventricle volume reduction can be applied at any appropriate time during the course of a disease [0046]. As well known in the art, the particular needs of a patient varies based on age, health, fitness, injury, race, height, etc. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to have performed the steps of positioning and securing the second therapy device of Powell at a time subsequent to the implantation of a first therapy device, as Annest teaches that reconfiguring the wall of a ventricle can be performed to augment a previous valve surgery. The modification merely involves a combination of known surgical procedures for improving heart function that obtains a predictable result of treating a particular patient’s needs. Regarding claim 2, Powell as modified discloses the plurality of tissue anchors (3610) is movably coupled to a tether, wherein Powell discloses that the length of the tether is shortened relative to the anchors (see [0140]). Additionally, Annest teaches that anchors (48, 50) attached to ventricle walls are moveable relative to a tether (52) [0078; 0080]. Regarding claim 3, Powell as modified discloses at least one tissue anchor (3610) is a self-attaching tissue anchor (see Fig. 37; [0140]). Additionally or alternatively, Annest teaches that anchors (48, 50) are self-attaching (see Fig. 6A-D; [0075]). Regarding claim 4, Powell as modified discloses that reshaping the ventricle may reduce a distance between a first papillary muscle and a second papillary muscle in the ventricle (see Fig. 36; [0139]). In regards to claim 6, Powell discloses that the therapy device can be attached to the wall of the left ventricle adjacent the papillary muscle, as shown in Figure 37 [0140]. Regarding claim 7, Powell as modified discloses securing the therapy device comprises attaching the therapy device to a papillary muscle (see Fig. 36 or 37 and paragraph [0139] or [0140]). In regards to claim 9, a circumference of the ventricle is considered to be the inner surface of the ventricle extending about a longitudinal axis, as indicated in the marked up drawing below). Powell discloses that the clips of the therapy device (3615) can be deployed at the papillary muscles [0139]. Regarding claim 13, Powell fails to explicitly disclose the accessing, positioning, securing, and reconfiguring steps take place one or more weeks after the implantation of the annuloplasty therapy implant. Powell does explain that the mitral valve clip may be deployed/implanted to augment the desired valve function before or after papillary or chordal manipulation ([0141] and [0155]). Powell also suggests that subsequent procedures may be required to adjust the shape of an implant if it is determined that additional coaptation is required [0135]. Annest teaches that the second therapy device can be included with other surgical therapies, such as augmenting or replacing a valve surgery [0045]. Annest goes on to teach that the methods of ventricle volume reduction can be applied at any appropriate time during the course of a disease [0046]. Therefore, it is considered to be within an ordinary level of skill in the art to perform the steps of placing the therapy device (3615) of Powell in a separate procedure one or more weeks after the implantation of the annuloplasty implant (mitral valve clip) in order to provide a treatment based on a particular patient’s needs. Regarding claim 17, although not explicitly stated, it is understood that pulling the walls of the ventricle towards one another in the method of Figure 37 would result in at least some degree of repositioning the papillary muscles. In another embodiment of Figure 36, Powell illustrates that the papillary muscles may be pulled towards one another [0139-0140]. This is considered to meet the requirement of “repositioning” one or more papillary muscles in the ventricle, as the location of one or more of the papillary muscles is changed with respect to at least some other portion of the ventricle. Regarding claim 18, Annest discloses reasons for treating heart failure, including cardiomyopathy [0005]. Regarding claim 19, Powell teaches treating mitral valve regurgitation [0003-0007]. Regarding claims 21, Powell teaches treating the mitral valve (Mv) with the disclosed method and placement of the second therapy device in the left ventricle (Fig. 36-37; [0006; 0007]). Regarding claim 22: Powell discloses imaging in order to correctly position the catheter and implants [0071]. Claim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Powell at al. in view of Annest et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent App. Pub. 2006/0025800 (Suresh). Powell discloses another embodiment of the second therapy device (2910) in Figure 29 that is reduced in length after attachment to the papillary muscles in order to reshape the mitral valve [0135]. Powell discloses this device may have a coating that minimizes the potential for clot formation, but fails to explicitly disclose an anti-proliferative drug coating. Annest also teaches that the anchors (48/50) of the second therapy device may include a drug eluting coating [0079]. Sunesh is in the same field of endeavor, and teaches another therapy device implanted within the ventricle to reduce a dimension thereof [0181]. Sunesh teaches that a therapy device can include an anti-proliferative coating to positively affect healing [0209]. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found it obvious to include an anti-proliferative drug coating on the second therapy device of the modified Powell method, as taught by Suresh, in order to provide a desired healing effect. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPAP 2007/0112425 (Schaller et al.) discloses a method of reshaping a ventricle by cinching a tether coupled to tissue anchors (Fig. 7A-B). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH WEBB ALEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5749. The examiner can normally be reached M, Tu, Th, Fr 9am - 3pm. 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, Melanie Tyson can be reached at 571-272-9062. 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. /SARAH W ALEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 30, 2015
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2017
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 13, 2017
Response Filed
Oct 30, 2017
Final Rejection — §103
May 02, 2018
Request for Continued Examination
May 05, 2018
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 04, 2018
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 07, 2018
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 28, 2018
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 02, 2019
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 08, 2019
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 10, 2019
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 24, 2019
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 09, 2019
Response Filed
Mar 16, 2020
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 22, 2020
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 14, 2020
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 20, 2020
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 23, 2020
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 20, 2021
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 28, 2022
Response Filed
Jul 18, 2022
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 25, 2022
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 02, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 22, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 26, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 01, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 16, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 21, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 24, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 17, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 24, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 04, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12575930
HEART VALVE DEPLOYMENT AID
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569251
SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLABLY AND SELECTIVELY OCCLUDING, RESTRICTING, AND DIVERTING FLOW WITHIN A PATIENT'S VASCULATURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12539210
TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE SEATING SENSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12533229
REPLACEMENT HEART VALVE HAVING IMPROVED COLLAPSIBLE SEAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12533227
PLUNGER FOR AN INJECTOR, AND INJECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

12-13
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+23.5%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 587 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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