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
2. 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.
Claims 29-34, 36-41, 45-48 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lapeyre et al. 2002/0183840.
PNG
media_image1.png
419
347
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 29 and 48, Lapeyre et al. discloses a prosthetic heart valve, comprising a valve housing (105) configured to be positioned adjacent to a heart valve annulus (functional language); one or more flaps (the flaps are interpreted to be element 110) moveably coupled to said valve housing: a passage (see blood flow path “F’ in figure 1) defined by an inner surface of at least one of said valve housing and said one or more flaps, wherein said passage is configured to facilitate blood flow therethrough along a longitudinal axis thereof, from an inflow side to an outflow side of said valve; one or more openings (see windows 125) through said inner surface.
However Lapeyre et al. does not explicitly disclose the functional language (e.g. claim 29)
“a portion of the blood flow flowing along the longitudinal axis of said passage is redirected from said passage through said one or more openings, wherein the direction of the redirected blood flow has a component that is normal to the longitudinal axis of said passage, thereby mitigating stagnation of the blood flow and thus mitigating a risk of blood clots formation” and e.g. claim 48”
“located such that at an open position of the heart valve, a portion of the blood flow is redirected away from a main blood flow flowing through said passage along a longitudinal axis thereof, thereby reducing the volumetric flow rate of the main flow, wherein said one or more openings are sized and positioned such that said volumetric flow rate is below a predetermined threshold value associated with fluttering of the one or more flaps throughout a heart cycle”.
MPEP 2114 states:
II. MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.
Lapeyre et al. discloses the structure as claimed, thus it is capable of performing the functions claimed (see for example [0059] which describes blood flow through the window 125).
3. Regarding claims 30, 34, 36-41, 45-47 see functional language and MPEP 2114 discussion supra. Regarding claim 31, see figure 1 supra. Regarding claim 32 see flange (105). Regarding claim 33, it is inherent that the openings are along the periphery in order to support the flaps.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 35, 42-44 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
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Suzette Gherbi whose telephone number is (571)272-
4751. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00am-3:00pm. 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:/Avww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Melanie Tyson can be reached on 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:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent- center for more information about Patent Center and https:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197.
/SUZETTE J GHERBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 December 9, 2025