DETAILED 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 .
Response to Arguments
During the telephonic interview on February 23, 2026 the examiner indicated that the new limitations seem to overcome the prior art. However, after a careful review of the Applicant’s arguments, the amended claims and after carefully reviewing the specification, the Examiner believes that the new limitations are new matter. In paragraph 133 does not say that all three stiffnesses are different from each other. For example, paragraph 133 discloses the following:
the three stiffnesses may generally be equal; or
the first stiffness may be more or less stiff than one or both of the second and third;
the second stiffness may be more or less stiff than one or both of the first and third;
the third stiffness may be more or less stiff than one or both of the first and second.
That language covers many possibilities, including:
all three equal
1st = 2nd = 3rd
only one is different, two are the same
1st ≠ 2nd, and 2nd = 3rd
2nd ≠ 1st, and 1st = 3rd
3rd ≠ 1st, and 1st = 2nd
However, paragraph 133 does not require the following scenario: 1st ≠ 2nd ≠ 3rd.
The key phrase is “one or both”. That means a given stiffness can differ from:
only one of the other two, or
both of the other two.
Therefore, the language allows all three to be different, but it does not say that they are all different from each other. Therefore, the Examiner believes the new limitations are new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 92-113 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The new limitations: “wherein the first stiffness, the second stiffness and the third stiffness are different from each other” are new matter. The Examiner believes that the new limitations are new matter, since, paragraph 133 does not say that all three stiffnesses are different from each other. See Examiner’s reasoning above in the response to arguments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 136-137 are allowed.
Claims 92-113 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 115, 118, 121, 123-126, 129-130, 133-135 and 137 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vidlund US patent 12,279,949 B2.
Vidlund discloses a method of treating a deficient native valve of a heart, the method comprising advancing a prosthetic heart valve (200, see Fig. 5A) in a collapsed state through vasculature of a patient using a delivery catheter, wherein the prosthetic heart valve (200, see Fig. 5A) comprises an anchoring structure (201, see Fig. 2C) and an expandable valve frame (205, see Fig. 2G) connected to the anchoring structure at a plurality of inflow connections (212b and 212d, see Figs. 2C and 2G) and a plurality of outflow connections (see Fig. 5A, 400), inserting the prosthetic heart valve into an atrioventricular valve of the heart, expanding the prosthetic heart valve into an expanded state. Wherein expanding the prosthetic heart valve into the expanded state comprises simultaneously (the anchoring structure and the valve frame expand during the delivery step) engaging the anchoring structure of the prosthetic heart valve with an atrioventricular annulus of the heart; and deploying the expandable valve frame within the anchoring structure (see Fig. 4B showing how element (104) encase element (105) to end up as Fig. 5A) between the plurality of inflow connections and the plurality of outflow connections to replace native leaflets of the atrioventricular annulus and releasing the prosthetic heart valve from the delivery catheter. wherein engaging the anchoring structure of the prosthetic heart valve with the atrioventricular annulus of the heart comprises engaging an annular region (203) of the anchoring structure (201) with the atrioventricular annulus; and deploying the expandable valve frame within the anchoring structure (see Fig. 4A) comprises allowing the expandable valve frame to expand within the annular region of the anchoring structure between the inflow connections and the outflow connections without contacting the annular region.
Regarding claim 118, as disclosed in Fig. 3, the valve frame (205) is elongated stretched relative to the anchoring structure (201), therefore, the two structures when expanded will axially draw toward each other when the implant radially expands.
Regarding claim 121, see elements 212c and 212d in Fig. 2G showing the axial and circumferential locations of the valve frame and the rivets have been interpreted as the plurality of connectors.
Regarding claim 123, see Fig. 2C, element 203 showing a bowl-like structure.
Regarding claims 124-126, see element 208 in Fig. 2C disclosing the plurality of anchoring elements and being capable of pushing the anchor elements into a ventricular side.
Regarding claim 130, the Examiner interpreted the dampers as elements 212a and 400.
Regarding claim 133, it is inherent that the elements 212a and 400 will absorb radially transmitted forces between the anchoring structure and the expandable valve.
Regarding claim 134, the claims are similar to the structural limitations claimed in claim 115 except for the following: the plurality of anchoring elements (208) extending from the outflow region towards the inflow region (see Fig. 5A) and the sealing covers covering the anchoring structure and the valve frame. See Figs. 2A, 2B and 3 disclosing the covers.
Regarding claim 135, the claims are similar to the structural limitations claimed in claim 115 except for the following: a plurality of connection elements couple with a plurality of attachment structures at a plurality of connectors at an outflow region. The Examiner interpreted the struts (400) as the plurality of connection elements and the plurality of connection elements are the point where elements 400 is attached to the anchoring structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 92-113 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.
Claims 136 and 137 are allowed.
Claims 119, 122, 127, 128, 131, 132 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN J STEWART whose telephone number is (571)272-4760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6PM EST.
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.
/ALVIN J STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 5/26/26
Prosecution Insights