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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, drawn to a prosthetic implant and delivery apparatus, claims 1-22 in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged.
In light of the amendment to claim 23 to further include the prosthetic implant of claim 1, the examiner has withdrawn the restriction of claim 23 as it now includes all the limitations of claim 1.
In light of the amendment to claim 24 to further include the prosthetic implant of claim 1, the examiner has withdrawn the restriction of claim 24 as it now includes all the limitations of claim 1.
Claims 1-24 has been considered in this Non-Final office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is requested to point out any particular references in the IDS which they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this office action.
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 11 and 20 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.
Claims 11 and 20 uses the term “substantially equal” which is terminology of relative degree, which has no basis of comparison. For this reason, it is considered broad and relatively unlimited. The examiner asserts that the claimed physical property (in this case, substantially equal) is present in the prior art material to some extent even though it is not explicitly recited. Therefore, the examiner hereby burdens the applicant to show that this property is not present.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bell et al. U.S. Publication 2015/0209140 A1.
PNG
media_image1.png
410
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Bell et al. discloses a prosthetic implant 20 as seen in Figures 2A-4B comprising: a frame 22 having an inflow end 32, an outflow end 36 (paragraph [0026] and [0030]), and a plurality of struts 72-78 (paragraphs [0008], [0024], [0034]), the struts 72 being interconnected at junctions 70, and wherein at least a portion of the plurality of struts 72 have a reduced strut width at at least one junction (as seen in the annotated Figure 3 and see Figure 4B, the portion 90L has a reduced strut width at at least one junction).
Regarding Claim 2, Bell et al. discloses wherein the frame 22 is a self-expanding frame (paragraphs [0005], [0010], [0024-0025] and [0028]).
Regarding Claim 3, Bell et al. discloses wherein the struts of the at least a portion of the plurality of struts have a reduced strut width at their inflow junctions WTL (as seen in Figure 3 and 4B and paragraph [030]).
Regarding Claim 4, Bell et al. discloses wherein the struts 72 of the at least a portion of the plurality of struts have a reduced strut width at their outflow junctions WLL (as seen in Figure 4B and annotated Figure 3 above).
Regarding Claim 5, Bell et al. discloses wherein the plurality of struts 72 define a first row of struts 50 at the inflow end 32 of the frame 22 (paragraph [0029]), a second row of struts 40 at the outflow end 36 of the frame 22 (as seen in Figure 2A) and at least one row of struts 52 between the inflow end and the outflow end of the frame (as seen in Figure 2A).
Regarding Claim 6, Bell et al. discloses wherein struts 72 of at least the first row of struts comprise a reduced strut width at their inflow junctions (as seen in the annotated Figure 3 above and see Figure 4B). The claim did not require the entire first row or all the cells that form said first row.
Regarding Claim 7, Bell et al. discloses wherein struts of at least the first row of struts comprise a reduced strut width at their outflow junctions (as seen in the annotated Figure 3 above and see Figure 4B). The claim did not require the entire first row or all the cells that form said first row.
Regarding Claim 14, Bell et al. discloses wherein the prosthetic implant 20 is a prosthetic heart valve 24 comprising a plurality of leaflets 26 coupled to the frame and configured to regulate a flow of blood through the frame (paragraphs [0004], [0024-0026] and as seen in Figures 1A-1B).
Regarding Claim 15, Bell et al. discloses wherein the prosthetic implant 20 is a docking station configured to be implanted in an annulus of a native heart valve and configured to receive a prosthetic heart valve 24 (paragraphs [0003-0004] and as seen in Figure 5B).
Regarding Claim 16, Bell et al. discloses wherein the prosthetic implant is a balloon-expandable prosthetic valve adapted to be mounted in a compressed state on the balloon of a delivery catheter (paragraphs [0005], [0025]).
Claim(s) 1-11 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Drasler et al. U.S. Publication 2012/0065723 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Drasler et al. discloses a prosthetic implant as seen in Figures 1-5 comprising: a frame 22 having an inflow end, an outflow end (see annotated Figure 2A), and a plurality of struts 10, the struts 10 being interconnected at junctions 15, and wherein at least a portion of the plurality of struts have a reduced strut width 23 at at least one junction 15 (as seen in Figures 4-5 and paragraph [0083]).
Regarding Claim 2, Drasler et al. discloses wherein the frame is a self-expanding frame (abstract, paragraphs [0026-0033] and [0080-0082]).
Regarding Claim 3, Drasler et al. discloses wherein the struts of the at least a portion of the plurality of struts have a reduced strut width at their inflow junctions (as seen in annotated Figure 2A and see Figures 3 and 4B and paragraphs [0029] and [0034]).
Regarding Claim 4, Drasler et al. discloses wherein the struts 10 of the at least a portion of the plurality of struts have a reduced strut width at their outflow junctions (as seen in Figure 4B and annotated Figure 2A above).
Regarding Claim 5, Drasler et al. discloses wherein the plurality of struts 10 define a first row of struts 20 at the inflow end of the frame, a second row of struts 20 at the outflow end of the frame and at least one row of struts 20 between the inflow end and the outflow end of the frame (each row of struts is referred to as sections 20, as seen in the annotated Figures 1A-2A and paragraphs [0077], [0079]).
Regarding Claim 6, Drasler et al. discloses wherein struts 10 of at least the first row of struts comprise a reduced strut width at their inflow junctions (as seen in the annotated Figure 2A and see Figure 4, paragraphs [0029], [0034], [0077], [0079]).
Regarding Claim 7, Drasler et al. discloses wherein struts of at least the first row of struts comprise a reduced strut width at their outflow junctions (as seen in the annotated Figure 3 above and see Figure 4B and paragraphs [0029], [0034], [0077], [0079]).
Regarding Claim 8, Drasler et al. discloses wherein struts of at least the second row of struts comprise a reduced strut width at their inflow junctions (as seen in the annotated Figure 2A and see Figure 4, paragraphs [0029], [0034], [0077], [0079]).
Regarding Claim 9, Drasler et al. discloses wherein the struts 10 comprise inflow end portions, outflow end portions, and intermediate portions between the inflow end portions and the outflow end portions (as seen in Figures 1A-2A and paragraph [0077]); and wherein the inflow end portions of the struts of the first row of struts comprise a first strut width (the inflow end portion is wherein there is narrowing of the strut to connect to the junction), the outflow end portions of the struts of the first row of struts comprise a second strut width, and the intermediate portions of the struts of the first row of struts comprise a third strut width that is greater than the first strut width (as seen in Figure 2A, the third strut width located between the two narrowed strut portions that connect to a junction has a greater width than the two narrowed regions).
Regarding Claim 10, Drasler et al. discloses wherein the third strut width is greater than the first strut width and greater than the second strut width (as seen in Figure 2A, the third strut width located between the two narrowed strut portions that connect to a junction has a greater width than the two narrowed regions).
Regarding Claim 11, Drasler et al. discloses wherein the first strut width and the second strut width are substantially equal (as seen in Figures 2A and 4-5).
Regarding Claim 19, Drasler et al. discloses a prosthetic implant as seen in Figures 1-5 comprising: a self-expanding frame having an inflow end, an outflow end (see annotated Figure 2A and abstract, paragraphs [0026-0033] and [0080-0082]), and a plurality of struts 10, the struts 10 being interconnected at junctions 15, wherein the struts 10 define a first row of struts 20 at the inflow end of the frame, a second row of struts 20 at the outflow end of the frame and at least one row of struts 20 between the inflow end and the outflow end of the frame (each row of struts is referred to as sections 20, as seen in the annotated Figures 1A-2A and paragraphs [0077], [0079]); wherein the struts 10 comprise inflow end portions, outflow end portions, and intermediate portions between the inflow end portions and the outflow end portions (as seen in Figures 1A-2A and paragraph [0077]); and wherein the inflow end portions of the struts of the first row of struts comprise a first strut width (the inflow end portion is wherein there is narrowing of the strut to connect to the junction), the outflow end portions of the struts of the first row of struts comprise a second strut width, and the intermediate portions of the struts of the first row of struts comprise a third strut width that is greater than the first strut width and greater than the second strut width (as seen in Figure 2A and 4-5, the third strut width located between the two narrowed strut portions that connect to a junction has a greater width than the two narrowed regions).
Regarding Claim 20, Drasler et al. discloses wherein the first strut width and the second strut width are substantially equal (as seen in Figures 2A and 4-5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 12 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drasler et al. U.S. Publication 2012/0065723 A1.
Regarding Claims 12, 21, Drasler discloses the strut width along the tapered area can be adjusted to alter the flexibility of the stent, therefore showing the strut width being a result effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio of the first strut width to the third width to be less than equal to 0.95 or from 0.7 to 0.95 as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the width of the first strut to be a lot less than the third width as it would improve the flexibility of the stent frame.
Claims 13, 17-18 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drasler et al. U.S. Publication 2012/0065723 A1 in view of Yeung et al. U.S. Publication 2011/0098804 A1.
Regarding Claim 17, Drasler et al. discloses a prosthetic implant delivery apparatus (paragraphs [0009], [0015], [0020], [0027-0028], [0080] and [0103]), comprising: a catheter comprising a delivery cylinder (sheath, see paragraphs [0030], [0036]), the delivery cylinder comprising an inner diameter (Drasler discloses the catheter houses the prosthetic implant 5 in a compressed state); and a prosthetic implant 5 comprising a self-expanding frame (abstract and paragraphs [0004], [0007], [0026], [0030-0033]) having an inflow end, an outflow end, and a plurality of struts 10, the struts being interconnected at junctions, and wherein at least a portion of the plurality of struts have a reduced strut 23 width at at least one junction 15 (as seen in Figures 4-5), the prosthetic implant retained in a radially compressed state in the delivery cylinder (paragraph [0036], [0081], [0104]). However, Drasler et al. does not expressly disclose the delivery apparatus comprising a handle portion at a proximal end portion of the catheter and an elongated shaft extending from the handle portion, the catheter further comprising a delivery cylinder at a distal end portion of the shaft. Yeung et al. teaches a prosthetic implant delivery apparatus 18 in the same field of endeavor for percutaneously delivering a stent (abstract, paragraphs [0009-0011] and [0040] and as seen in Figures 1A-1Ca and 3), the prosthetic implant delivery apparatus 18 comprising a catheter 20 comprising a handle portion 30 at a proximal end portion of the catheter 20 and an elongated shaft 24 extending from the handle portion 30, the catheter further comprising a delivery cylinder 26/28 (delivery capsule 28 is provided as a part of the sheath assembly 26, see paragraph [0040]) at a distal end portion of the shaft (as seen in Figure 3 and paragraph [0040]) and a prosthetic implant 22 comprising a self-expanding frame 32 (paragraphs [0013], [0042] and [0044-0045]) for the purpose of having a delivery system that is capable of partially deploying an end of the stent and allowing the clinician to better evaluate the position or location of the device before full deployment and allow for recapturing and repositioning of the stent at an implantation site (paragraphs [0007], [0009]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Drasler’s delivery apparatus to further include a handle portion, elongated shaft extending from the handle portion and a delivery cylinder at a distal end portion of the shaft as taught by Yeung et al. for the purpose of having a delivery system that allows for a clinician to partially deploy an end of the stent and using the handle and delivery capsule to recapture and reposition the stent for allowing the clinician to better evaluate the proper positioning of the stent at the implantation site.
Regarding Claims 13, 18, Drasler et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the prosthetic implant comprises a specified design diameter of at least 29 mm; and when the prosthetic implant is partially deployed from the delivery cylinder such that at least 80% of an overall length of the prosthetic implant is unsheathed, a ratio of a diameter of the inflow end of the prosthetic implant to the inner diameter of the delivery cylinder is less than or equal to 6.0. Yeung et al. teaches a prosthetic implant delivery apparatus 18 in the same field of endeavor for percutaneously delivering a stent (abstract, paragraphs [0009-0011] and [0040] and as seen in Figures 1A-1Ca and 3), the prosthetic implant delivery apparatus 18 comprising a catheter 20 a delivery cylinder 26/28 (delivery capsule 28 is provided as a part of the sheath assembly 26, see paragraph [0040]) and a prosthetic implant 22 having a diameter of at least 29 mm (paragraph [0047]) for the purpose of having an implant diameter that is sized to be positioned and sealed against the native annulus to prevent leak and prevent migration of the device at the native valve implantation site (paragraph [0006]), wherein the delivery cylinder is employed to partially-deploy a segment of the prosthetic implant to be withdrawn from the catheter and allowed to expand (paragraphs [0007-0009], [0012]) and be configured to be slidably recaptured into the delivery cylinder for repositioning. Therefore, Yeung et al. teaches the need to have a delivery cylinder having an inner diameter that is capable of partially deploying a length of the prosthetic implant, wherein the implant has a deployed diameter of 29 mm and recapturing said deployed length into the inner diameter of the delivery catheter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Drasler’s delivery apparatus to further a prosthetic implant having a diameter of at least 29 mm and include a ratio of a diameter of the inflow end of the prosthetic implant to the inner diameter of the delivery cylinder is less than or equal to 6.0 as taught by Yeung for the purpose of having an implant diameter of 29 mm that is sized to be positioned and sealed against the native annulus to prevent leak and prevent migration of the device at the native valve implantation site and to have a delivery cylinder that is capable of partially deploying the prosthetic implant to a deployed state and having a corresponding inner diameter of the delivery cylinder to be big enough to recapture a partially expanded prosthetic implant into the lumen and allow for repositioning and relocation to the implantation site.
Regarding Claim 22, Drasler et al. does not expressly disclose the prosthetic implant to be a prosthetic heart valve comprising a plurality of leaflets coupled to the frame and configured to regulate a flow of blood through the frame. Yeung et al. teaches a prosthetic implant delivery apparatus 18 in the same field of endeavor for percutaneously delivering a stent (abstract, paragraphs [0009-0011] and [0040] and as seen in Figures 1A-1Ca and 3), the prosthetic implant delivery apparatus 18 comprising a catheter 20 and a prosthetic implant 22 comprising a self-expanding frame 32 (paragraphs [0013], [0042], [0044-0045] and [0083-0084]), wherein the prosthetic implant 22 is a prosthetic heart valve 34 comprising a plurality of leaflets 36 coupled to the frame 32 for the purpose of replacing a heart valve and assisting to regulate a flow of blood through the frame 32 (paragraphs [0005] and [0040-0045]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Drasler’s delivery apparatus to further include a prosthetic heart valve comprising a plurality of leaflets coupled to the frame as taught by Yeung et al. for the purpose of replacing a heart valve and assisting to regulate a flow of blood through the frame.
Regarding Claim 23, Drasler et al. discloses a prosthetic implant delivery apparatus (paragraphs [0009], [0015], [0020], [0027-0028], [0080] and [0103]), comprising: a catheter comprising a delivery cylinder (sheath, see paragraphs [0030], [0036]), the delivery cylinder comprising an inner diameter (Drasler discloses the catheter houses the prosthetic implant 5 in a compressed state); and a prosthetic implant 5 comprising a self-expanding frame (abstract and paragraphs [0004], [0007], [0026], [0030-0033]) having an inflow end, an outflow end, and a plurality of struts 10, the struts being interconnected at junctions, and wherein at least a portion of the plurality of struts have a reduced strut 23 width at at least one junction 15 (as seen in Figures 4-5), the prosthetic implant retained in a radially compressed state in the delivery cylinder (paragraph [0036], [0081], [0104]). However, Drasler et al. does not expressly disclose the delivery apparatus comprising a handle portion at a proximal end portion of the catheter and an elongated shaft extending from the handle portion, the catheter further comprising a delivery cylinder at a distal end portion of the shaft. Yeung et al. teaches a prosthetic implant delivery apparatus 18 in the same field of endeavor for percutaneously delivering a stent (abstract, paragraphs [0009-0011] and [0040] and as seen in Figures 1A-1Ca and 3), the prosthetic implant delivery apparatus 18 comprising a catheter 20 comprising a handle portion 30 at a proximal end portion of the catheter 20 and an elongated shaft 24 extending from the handle portion 30, the catheter further comprising a delivery cylinder 26/28 (delivery capsule 28 is provided as a part of the sheath assembly 26, see paragraph [0040]) at a distal end portion of the shaft (as seen in Figure 3 and paragraph [0040]) and a prosthetic implant 22 comprising a self-expanding frame 32 (paragraphs [0013], [0042] and [0044-0045]) for the purpose of having a delivery system that is capable of partially deploying an end of the stent and allowing the clinician to better evaluate the position or location of the device before full deployment and allow for recapturing and repositioning of the stent at an implantation site (paragraphs [0007], [0009]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Drasler’s delivery apparatus to further include a handle portion, elongated shaft extending from the handle portion and a delivery cylinder at a distal end portion of the shaft as taught by Yeung et al. for the purpose of having a delivery system that allows for a clinician to partially deploy an end of the stent and using the handle and delivery capsule to recapture and reposition the stent for allowing the clinician to better evaluate the proper positioning of the stent at the implantation site. Drasler et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the prosthetic implant comprises a specified design diameter of at least 29 mm; and when the prosthetic implant is partially deployed from the delivery cylinder such that at least 80% of an overall length of the prosthetic implant is unsheathed, a ratio of a diameter of the inflow end of the prosthetic implant to the inner diameter of the delivery cylinder is less than or equal to 6.0. Yeung et al. teaches a prosthetic implant delivery apparatus 18 in the same field of endeavor for percutaneously delivering a stent (abstract, paragraphs [0009-0011] and [0040] and as seen in Figures 1A-1Ca and 3), the prosthetic implant delivery apparatus 18 comprising a catheter 20 a delivery cylinder 26/28 (delivery capsule 28 is provided as a part of the sheath assembly 26, see paragraph [0040]) and a prosthetic implant 22 having a diameter of at least 29 mm (paragraph [0047]) for the purpose of having an implant diameter that is sized to be positioned and sealed against the native annulus to prevent leak and prevent migration of the device at the native valve implantation site (paragraph [0006]), wherein the delivery cylinder is employed to partially-deploy a segment of the prosthetic implant to be withdrawn from the catheter and allowed to expand (paragraphs [0007-0009], [0012]) and be configured to be slidably recaptured into the delivery cylinder for repositioning. Therefore, Yeung et al. teaches the need to have a delivery cylinder having a inner diameter that is capable of partially deploying a length of the prosthetic implant, wherein the implant has a deployed diameter of 29 mm and recapturing said deployed length into the inner diameter of the delivery catheter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Drasler’s delivery apparatus to further a prosthetic implant having a diameter of at least 29 mm and include a ratio of a diameter of the inflow end of the prosthetic implant to the inner diameter of the delivery cylinder is less than or equal to 6.0 as taught by Yeung for the purpose of having an implant diameter of 29 mm that is sized to be positioned and sealed against the native annulus to prevent leak and prevent migration of the device at the native valve implantation site and to have a delivery cylinder that is capable of partially deploying the prosthetic implant to a deployed state and having a corresponding inner diameter of the delivery cylinder to be big enough to recapture a partially expanded prosthetic implant into the lumen and allow for repositioning and relocation to the implantation site.
Regarding Claim 24, Drasler et al. discloses a method, comprising: advancing a self-expanding the prosthetic implant of claim 1 configured as a self- expanding prosthetic implant (abstract and paragraphs [0004], [0007], [0026], [0030-0033]) having an inflow end, an outflow end, and a plurality of struts 10, the struts being interconnected at junctions, and wherein at least a portion of the plurality of struts have a reduced strut 23 width at at least one junction 15 (as seen in Figures 4-5), the prosthetic implant retained in a radially compressed state in the delivery cylinder (paragraph [0036], [0081], [0104]) from a delivery cylinder of a delivery apparatus in which the prosthetic implant is retained in a radially compressed state such that the inflow end of the prosthetic implant at least partially expands (abstract, paragraphs [0007], [0014], [0017], [0030], [0036], [0081], [0104] and [0111]) and as seen in Figures 1A-1Ca and 3); and retracting the prosthetic implant back into the delivery cylinder such that the prosthetic implant returns to the radially compressed state (abstract and paragraphs [0007], [0017], [0030], [0036], [0081], [0104] and [0111]). Drasler et al. does not expressly disclose wherein when the prosthetic implant is partially deployed from the delivery cylinder such that at least 80% of an overall length of the prosthetic implant is unsheathed, a ratio of a diameter of the inflow end of the prosthetic implant to the inner diameter of the delivery cylinder is less than or equal to 6.0. Yeung et al. teaches a prosthetic implant delivery apparatus 18 in the same field of endeavor for percutaneously delivering a stent (abstract, paragraphs [0009-0011] and [0040] and as seen in Figures 1A-1Ca and 3), the prosthetic implant delivery apparatus 18 comprising a catheter 20 a delivery cylinder 26/28 (delivery capsule 28 is provided as a part of the sheath assembly 26, see paragraph [0040]) and wherein the delivery cylinder is employed to partially-deploy a segment of the prosthetic implant to be withdrawn from the catheter and allowed to expand (paragraphs [0007-0009], [0012]) and be configured to be slidably recaptured into the delivery cylinder for repositioning. Therefore, Yeung et al. teaches the need to have a delivery cylinder having a inner diameter that is capable of partially deploying a length of the prosthetic implant and recapturing said deployed length into the inner diameter of the delivery catheter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Drasler’s delivery apparatus to further include a ratio of a diameter of the inflow end of the prosthetic implant to the inner diameter of the delivery cylinder is less than or equal to 6.0 to have a delivery cylinder that is capable of partially deploying the prosthetic implant to a deployed state and having a corresponding inner diameter of the delivery cylinder to be big enough to recapture a partially expanded prosthetic implant into the lumen and allow for repositioning and relocation to the implantation site.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEEMA MATHEW whose telephone number is (571) 270-1452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 am – 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, SPE, Melanie Tyson 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEEMA MATHEW/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774