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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (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 1 -2 , 4 -5 , 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Benchetrit (US 2005/0119672) as provided in the applicant’s IDS . Regarding claim 1, Benchetrit discloses a band-shaped medical device (as seen in Fig. 1) for narrowing a body channel of a patient, the device being placeable around body tissue surrounding the body channel the device (paragraph [0026] “ gastroplasty band formed by a flexible strip designed to be closed around the stomach of a patient by closure means towards the two ends of the strip in order to reduce the diameter of the opening of the stoma ”) comprising: a first section formed of a first silicone composition ( dorsal reinforcement, fig 3 element 12) paragraph [0027] “ the dorsal reinforcement is made out of a first elastomer material having predetermined hardness d.sub.1 on the Shore A scale ” and paragraph [0042] “ FIGS. 1 to 3 show a gastroplasty band 1 in accordance with the invention formed by a flexible strip 2 made of elastomer material, e.g. silicone ” ) a second section formed of a second silicone composition having a lower Shore A hardness compared to the first silicone composition ( lateral wall, fig. 3 element 13 paragraph [0028] “ the lateral walls are made out of a second elastomer material of the same kind as the first material but of predetermined hardness d.sub.2 on the Shore A scale that is such that d.sub.2 < d.sub.1 ” and paragraph [0042] “ FIGS. 1 to 3 show a gastroplasty band 1 in accordance with the invention formed by a flexible strip 2 made of elastomer material, e.g. silicone ”) ; a connecting section which integrally bonds the first section to the second section (paragraph [0055] “ using two simple overmolding steps corresponding to injecting two elastomer materials of the same kind so as to obtain a one-piece band of two overmolded materials with dorsal reinforcement made out of a first elastomer material having Shore A hardness d1 that is greater than the Shore A hardness of the second elastomer material constituting the remainder of the band ” The examiner is interpreting that since the band is overmolded , meaning there is one material molded over another to create a single integrated part, that there is a connecting section between first section ( fig. 3, element 12 ) and second section ( fig. 3, element 13 ).); and the first section (Fig. 3, element 12) and the second section (fig. 3, element 13) having a first locking part (fig. 1, elements 5 and 5 a) and a second locking part (fig. 1, elements 6 and 6 a) respectively, by which the device is closable to form a ring (shown in fig. 2) which encircles a passage opening for the body tissue surrounding the body channel (paragraph [0042] “ is designed to be closed around the stomach of a patient by closure means ”) ; and wherein the connecting section consists of a mixture of the first silicone composition and the second silicone composition (paragraph [ 0071] “ overmolding at least on the dorsal reinforcement by injecting a second elastomer material of the same kind as the first material but of predetermined hardness d.sub.2 on the Shore A scale such that d.sub.2 < d.sub.1, in order to make the remaining portions of the band and obtain an overmolded one-piece band of varying hardness. ” The examiner is interpreting that there is a connecting section present between the first and second sections. Further, since the overmolding process uses two silicone materials with two different stiffness, the examiner is interpreting that the connecting section consists of a mixture of the first silicone composition and the second silicone composition.) Regarding claim 2, Benchetrit teaches the device of claim 1 and wherein the second silicone composition has a Shore A hardness lower at least by a value of 15 compared to the first silicone composition. (Paragraph [0056] “ Advantageously, the value of d1 lies in the range 65 to 85 on the Shore A scale, with the value of d2 lying in the range 25 to 45 on the Shore A scale. In particularly advantageously manner, the value of d1 is about 80 on the Shore A scale and the value d2 is about 30 on the Shore A scale. ”) Regarding claim 4, Benchetrit discloses the device of claim 1, and wherein the first locking part has an insertion opening. (Paragraph [ 0058] “ In known manner, the closure means 5, 6 comprise female means 5A secured to the end 3 of the flexible strip and formed by a pierced sleeve or a ring. ”) Regarding claim 5, Benchetrit discloses the device of claim 4, wherein the second locking part is insertable (Paragraph [0058] “The closure means also comprise male means 6A secured to the other end 4 of the flexible strip 2, the male means 6A being formed, for example, by a substantially radial projection constituting an abutment.” ) into the insertion opening and is latchable with respect to the first locking part in a closed state (shown in figure 2, male element 6A is inserted into female element 5A). Regarding claim 10, Benchetrit discloses the device of claim 1 and wherein the device is formed as a single piece. (Paragraph [0086] “ A one-piece band is also obtained that presents great regularity in all of the elements that make it up. ”) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 . Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benchetrit in view of Bertolote ( US 2010 / 0087843 ) . Regarding claim 3, Benchetrit teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the first silicone composition has a Shore A hardness in a range from 30 to 70, and the second silicone composition has a Shore A hardness in a range from 2 to 15 . However, Bertolote teaches a molded silicone gastric band with two different sections of varying stiffness. (Paragraph [ 0130] “ In a specific embodiment, cushions 1016 are made of silicone elastomer having a hardness of 10 Shore A and membrane 1014 is made of silicone elastomer having a hardness of 30 Shore A ”) The examiner is interpreting the gastric band taught in Benchetrit would be modified to have the inner surface /second silicone modified to have a shore A hardness of 10 (like the cushions taught in Bertolote ) and the outer surface /first silicone to have a shore A hardness of 30 (like the membrane taught in Bertolote ). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gastric band taught in Benchetrit to have the shore A hardness of Bertolote . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that gastric bands of this design generally give satisfaction, but they suffer from a certain number of problems, and in particular problems of tolerance by the patient. It turns out to be particularly important to reduce as much as possible the sensation of discomfort such bands produce in the zone where the stomach is restricted, and to avoid or reduce the appearance of cell lesions in the restriction zone. In order to ensure that such bands are strong enough, and in particular to ensure that the closure of the band is reliable, it turns out to be necessary to use elastomer materials having a high degree of hardness on the Shore A scale, and thus considerable rigidity, and although that does indeed contribute to strengthening the band, it also contributes to turning it into a source of trauma for the cell tissue and for the patient . Therefore, by lowering the range of the shore A hardness taught in Benchetrit to have the shore A hardness taught in Bertolote the gastric band is able to maintain strength without compromising patient comfortability. See background section paragraph [001 2]-[ 0 014 ] of Benchetrit . Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benchetrit in view of Jarsaillon (US 7753841) . Regarding claim 6, Benchetrit teaches the device of claim 5 but fails to teach wherein the second locking part has at least two latching lugs which are latchable with the first locking part as desired to adjust a size of the passage opening. However, Jarsaillon teaches a n adjustable silicone gastric ring with latching lugs (Figure 2B, element 6. Column 4, line 4: “ At its other end 2b, it has a tapered shape facilitating its insertion into the eyelet 4 and comprises a snap-fit catch 6 intended to be snap-fitted into the eyelet 4 and to cooperate with the shoulder 5 in order to maintain the band 2 in the form of a ring. ” And Column 4, line 8: “ As shown in FIG. 2B, end 2b can comprise several successive catches 6, making it possible to close the band 2 at several diameters adapted to the specific circumstances of the patient to be treated. ” ) The examiner is interpreting that the gastric band taught in Benchetrit would be modified at the second locking section , ( Benchetrit , fig. 1, element 6A) to have two or more lat c hing lugs as taught in Jarsaillon . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gastric band taught in Benchetrit to have the latching lugs taught in Jarsaillon . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that this is a known technique in the art of gastric bands and that modifying the band taught in Benchetrit to have the latching lugs taught in Jarsaillon would have produced a gastric band that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Claim s 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benchetrit in view of Wiley (US 2007 / 0250086 ) . Regarding claim 7, Benchetrit teaches the device of claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising a third section formed of a third silicone composition and an additional connecting section which integrally bonds the third section to the second section, the additional connecting section consisting of a mixture of the second silicone composition and the third silicone composition. However, Wiley teaches a silicone gastric band of variable hardness with an exten der (Fig 2, element 100) made of silicone (paragraph [0092] “the flexible silicone extender”) that connects to the gastric band (as shown in fig. 1, paragraph [0082] “ The tether strap 108 is shaped and dimensioned for passage through the aperture 38 formed in the tab 24 and ultimate attachment within a coupling indent 110 formed in the outer surface of the first end 102 of the extender 100. In this way, the tether strap 108 extending from the extender 100 loops through the tab 24 readily coupling the first end 102 of the extender 100 to the first latching member 22 for selective attachment and detachment. ” And paragraph [0039] “ The extender 100 is removable with one cut through the tether strap 108 on the extender 100 and incorporates a recess or an open recess, for example, a cuplike feature, 106 for coupling the first end 14 of gastric band 10 and extender 100 close together so as to move as an integral unit. ”) The examiner is interpreting this extender to be a third section formed of a third silicone composition section and the connecting section to be where the gastric belt and extender are bonded to each other (element 106) . Since the gastric belt and the extender are made of two different silicone compositions, the connecting section is being interpreted to be made of a second and third silicone composition. The examiner is interpreting being able to “move as integral unit” as the extender (third section) and the belt (second section) being integrally bonded to each other. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gastric band taught in Benchetrit to have this third section taught in Wiley. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that adding a third section to the gastric band that is removable in some capacity by the surgeon after implantation is a known technique in the art of gastric bands. The claimed device is applying this known technique and would have yielded the predictable results of having a gastric band that would allow for a temporary locking mechanism while the surgeon determines the final size prior to tearing off the extra third section. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benchetrit in view of Wiley further in view of Bertolote . Regarding claim 9, Benchetrit and Wiley teach the device of claim 7 but fail s to teach wherein the third silicone composition has a Shore A hardness in a range from 30 to 70 . However, Bertolote teaches a molded silicone gastric band of varying stiffness with one range within the claimed Shore A hardness range. (Paragraph [ 0130] “ In a specific embodiment …. membrane 1014 is made of silicone elastomer having a hardness of 30 Shore A. ”) The examiner is modifying the third section taught in Benchetrit and Wiley to have a shore A hardness of 30 as taught in Bertolote . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gastric band taught in Benchetrit to have the shore A hardness of Bertolote . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that gastric bands of this design generally give satisfaction, but they suffer from a certain number of problems, and in particular problems of tolerance by the patient. It turns out to be particularly important to reduce as much as possible the sensation of discomfort such bands produce in the zone where the stomach is restricted, and to avoid or reduce the appearance of cell lesions in the restriction zone. In order to ensure that such bands are strong enough, and in particular to ensure that the closure of the band is reliable, it turns out to be necessary to use elastomer materials having a high degree of hardness on the Shore A scale, and thus considerable rigidity, and although that does indeed contribute to strengthening the band, it also contributes to turning it into a source of trauma for the cell tissue and for the patient . Therefore, by lowering the range of the shore A hardness taught in Benchetrit to have the shore A hardness taught in Bertolote the gastric band is able to maintain strength without compromising patient comfortability. See background section paragraph [001 2]-[0 0 14 ] of Benchetrit . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dadi (US 6676674 ) teaches a gastric band with a rigid section and softer section . Kuzmak ( US 4592339 ) teaches a gastric band with multiple layers encased in silicone. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ARIANA JOY LACAY DECASTRO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8316 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-5596 . 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. /A.L.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /JACQUELINE CHENG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791