0Detailed 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/20/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, and 21 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 5, and 21 recite “the at least one of the plurality of strip-shaped sections” or “the at least two strip-shaped sections” but the language is unclear to which element the clai is referring. The Examiner suggests using different terms for the attached/unattached strips, such as “the at least one unattached strip-shaped section” or “the at least two unattached strip-shaped sections”. Amendments to the claims would be necessary to ensure proper antecedent basis.
Claim 21 recites “and to prevent” but it is unclear what is doing the preventing.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 9-15, 19, and 21 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 1, 5, and 21 recite “one or more other ones” or “ones of the one or more other ones” but should the limitation “other ones” is unclear. The broad and indefinite scope of the limitation fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art with reasonable certainty of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, therefore the claim is rendered indefinite. The claims should recite something along the lines of “the attached strip-shaped sections” with proper antecedent basis.
Claim 19 recites “the stent” without proper antecedent basis.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 2-5, 9-15, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art fails to teach the artificial heart valve with the details as claimed in claim 1 with a support structure covering made up of attached and unattached strips in a cut pattern, wherein the unattached strip acts as a valve leaflet that moves away from the support structure to allow anterograde blood flow on both sides of the strip through longitudinal gaps that are created by the away movement and wherein the unattached strip is pressed against the support structure to prevent retrograde blood flow and close the longitudinal gaps.
Regarding claim 21, the closest prior art fails to teach an the artificial heart valve with the details as claimed in claim 21 with a support structure covering made up of attached and unattached strips in a cut pattern, wherein the unattached strip acts as a valve leaflet that moves away from the support structure to allow anterograde blood flow on both sides of the strip through longitudinal gaps that are created by the away movement and wherein the unattached strip is pressed against the support structure to prevent retrograde blood flow and close the longitudinal gaps and further wherein the strip sections partially overlap when at least one strip is away from the support structure.
The closest prior art Walzman (US 20190151072 A1) teaches a stent with non-attached strip sections that overlap (figure 12, [0038]) however the strip sections are designed to seal the stent not allow one way valve flow or act as an artificial heart valve.
The closest prior art DANINO (US 20180021130 A1) teaches a stent that has a strip section that allows one way valve flow activated by pressure ([0008]), however does teach a cut pattern with blood flowing on both sides of the longitudinal strips, blood flows in a different direction and there is not interaction and overlap with other unattached strips.
The closest prior art Schreck (US 20110022153 A1) teaches a stent that has a strip and hole that allows one way valve flow ([0078]), however does not teach a cut pattern with blood flowing on both sides of the longitudinal strips and interaction and overlap with other unattached strips.
The closest prior art Krause (US 20080140176 A1) teaches a stent with overlapping plates that are left partially unattached ([0078]) however the cover is designed to cover openings [0018] and does not teach one way valve flow with a cut pattern with blood flowing on both sides of longitudinal strips.
The closest prior art Wallace (US 6007573 A) teaches a cover with a cut pattern (fig 15) however is silent to any unattached strips and the cover is used to wrap around a support in multiple layers to create an imperforate wall (col 10, lines 62-65).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANNA LOUISE PASQUALINI whose telephone number is (703)756-1984. The examiner can normally be reached Telework 8:30PM-4:30PM EST M-F (occasionally off Fridays).
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at (571) 272-4746. 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.
/H.L.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/SARAH W ALEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774