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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 03/30/2026. As directed by the amendment: claim 6 has been amended, no claims have been cancelled and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application, and currently examined in the Office Action.
Examiner’s Notes
It is to be noted that the claimed invention of claims 1-5 is “An anchor garage”; thus, only the claimed structure of the final device of the claimed invention, i.e. “An anchor garage” bears patentable weight; structure directed towards any other device, i.e. “a tissue anchor”, “an elongate member”, “an anchor housing” and “an anchor”, does not hold patentable weight and will only be considered to the extent that it further defines the final structure of the claimed invention of “An anchor garage”.
It is further to be noted that in device/apparatus claims only the claimed structure of the final device bears patentable weight, and intended use/functional language is considered to the extent that it further defines the claimed structure of the final device (see MPEP 2114).
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant(s) fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Decker et al (US PG Pub. 2019/0059876), as previously disclosed, hereinafter Decker.
Regarding claim 1, Decker discloses an anchor garage (52), illustrated in Figures 2A and 3A-3D, configured to limit the extent a tissue anchor (24) housed therein travels distally out of said anchor garage (52), said anchor garage (52) comprising a wall defining a lumen configured to house a tissue anchor (24) therein; a stopper (72) extending radially inwardly from said anchor garage wall into the lumen and positioned to limit distal travel of an elongate member (74) operatively coupled to the tissue anchor (24) within said anchor garage (52), illustrated in Figures 2A and 3A-3D ([0062]).
Regarding claim 2, Decker discloses the anchor garage of claim 1, wherein said stopper (72) comprises a tab (66) formed by a cut in said anchor garage wall and bent radially-inwardly into the lumen defined within said anchor garage (52), illustrated in Figures 2A and 3A-3D ([0057], Lines 10-14 and 18 & [0062], Lines 1-2 – to clarify, stopper 72 is formed/located on the luminal side of cantilevered section/tab 66, which is formed by the axial slots/cuts in the anchor garage wall; and due to the cantilever mechanism the tab/stopper can be bent radially-inwardly into the lumen).
Regarding claim 3, Decker discloses the anchor garage of claim 1, wherein said stopper (72) is configured to, i.e. has the physical structural ability to, fit within a longitudinal groove in an anchor housing (74) of an anchor (24) positioned within the anchor garage lumen to limit rotational movement of the anchor with respect to said anchor garage, illustrated in Figures 2A and 3A-3D ([0062] – to clarify, only the structural limitaons of the claimed inventive device, i.e. the “anchor garage”, bear patentable weight; in the instant case, Decker clearly teaches an anchor garage 52 comprising a stopper 72, and though “a longitudinal groove in an anchor housing” may not specifically be disclosed, the anchor housing and any structure related to it is not part of the final structure of the claimed invention, and the stopper 72 of the anchor garage 52 is configured to/has the physical/structural ability to “fit within a longitudinal groove in an anchor housing”, thereby reading on the claim).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Decker discloses the anchor garage of claim 1, wherein a longitudinal slot/axial slot is defined in said anchor garage (52) wall, illustrated in Figure 2A ([0057], Lines 10-12); and though Decker may not specifically disclose the longitudinal slot/axial slot is sized, and positioned, to receive/allow passage therethrough of a component/rotational stopper projecting radially-outwardly from an anchor positioned within the anchor garage lumen to limit rotational movement of the anchor with respect to said anchor garage, the anchor and any structure related to it is not part of the final structure of the claimed invention, i.e. the “anchor garage”, and the longitudinal slot/axial slot, of the anchor garage (52), is configured to/has the physical/structural ability to meet the function of receiving a component of an anchor, as disclosed in the claim, thus, the anchor garage of Decker reads on the claims.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Decker discloses a delivery/deployment system, illustrated in Figures 2A-3D, comprising an implantable device housing (52) defining a lumen therethrough and having a proximal end and a distal end; an implantable device (24) positionable within the lumen of the implantable device housing (52) for delivery to the treatment site (T); an elongate member (74) operatively coupled with said implantable device (24) to move said implantable device distally out of said implantable device housing; and an implantable-device-extension-limiter arrangement comprising a stopper component (72), comprising a radially-inwardly extending component (72) extending radially inwardly into the lumen of the implantable device housing (52), and a stopper component (SCEM), comprising a radially-expanded portion, operatively associated with said elongate member (74), and engageable with said radially-inwardly extending (72) component of said implantable device housing (52) to limit the distance said elongate member may extend said implantable device distally out of said implantable device housing, illustrated in Figures 2A, 3A-3D and modified figure 2A, below ([0062]).
PNG
media_image1.png
269
429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 17, 19 and 20, Decker discloses a delivery/deployment system, illustrated in Figures 2A-3D, comprising an implantable device housing (52) defining a lumen therethrough and having a proximal end and a distal end; an implantable device (24) positionable within the lumen of the implantable device housing (52) for delivery to the treatment site (T); ;an elongate member (60&62) operatively coupled with said implantable device (24) to move it distally out of said implantable device housing (52); and an implantable-device-extension-limiter arrangement comprising a stopper component (66) operatively associated with said implantable device housing (52) and a stopper component (62) operatively associated with said elongate member (60&62) configured to engage with said stopper component (66 – by the proximal portion of 66) operatively associated with said implantable device housing (52) to limit the distance said elongate member may extend said implantable device distally out of said implantable device housing, illustrated in Figures 3A-3D ([0060]); and further comprising a rotation-limiter component (SCEM) operatively associated with said implantable device (24) and engageable with/operatively engages said stopper component (66 – by inward portion 72 of stopper 66) of said implantable device housing (52) to limit rotation of said implantable device with respect to said implantable device housing, illustrated in Figures 2A, 3A-3D and modified figure 2A, above ([0062]).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krumpelmann (WO 2021/035050), as previously disclosed.
Regarding claims 6-9, Krumpelmann discloses a delivery/deployment system, comprising a leaflet clip spreader (140); a leaflet clip (112) operatively associated with said leaflet clip spreader (140), illustrated in Figure 1; an anchor garage (122), having a wall defining a lumen therein; an anchor (124) operatively associated with said anchor garage (122) and positionable within the anchor garage lumen; a stylet (126/125) operatively coupled with said anchor (124) to move said anchor distally with respect to said anchor garage (122); and an implantable-device-extension-limiter arrangement comprising an anchor garage stopper component (AGSC), extending inwardly from a wall of said anchor garage, comprising a tab formed by a cut in said anchor garage wall and bent radially-inwardly into the lumen of the anchor garage, and a stylet stopper component (127), comprising a radially-expanded portion, operatively associated with said stylet (126/125); wherein said stylet stopper component (127) is configured to engage with said tab of the anchor garage stopper component (AGSC) to limit distal extension/the distance said stylet may extend said anchor distally out of said anchor garage, illustrated in Figures 2, 6A-6C and modified figure 6A, below.
PNG
media_image2.png
450
277
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-16 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the rejections of independent claims 1 and 17 as being unpatentable over the prior art of Decker, stating that the prior art does not teach the parameters set forth in the claims. Specifically, regarding independent claim 1, Applicant states the parameter of the stopper extending radially inwardly from a wall of the anchor garage to limit distal travel of an elongate member coupled to the tissue anchor, within the anchor garage, to extend the tissue anchor distally out of the anchor garage is not taught by Decker, and further sates the ridge/stopper (72) of Decker only prevents proximal travel and not distal travel, thereby not reading on the claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion. Applicant is remined that the claimed invention is “An anchor garage”, as previously stated, and that only the claimed final structure of the invention, i.e. the “anchor garage” bears patentable weight; all the other structure, of any of the other portions/devices, set forth in the claim are only considered to the extent that they further define the final structure of the “anchor garage”. Therefore, the structure of the anchor garage (52), illustrated in Figures 2A and 3A-3D of Decker, meets all the structural limitations set forth for the final structure of said anchor garage, and said structure would be capable of meeting the limitation of the stopper (72) being positioned to limit distal travel of elongate member (26). Additionally, the claim does not actually set forth any directional specification/location, i.e. what direction/location distal is, in reference to the final structure of the claimed invention of the anchor garage; hence distal could be assumed to be in the direction toward the spring component (26), thereby further reading on the claim. Hence, the rejection of independent claim 1 as being unpatentable over the prior art of Decker is deemed to be proper since all the structural parameters set forth in the claim are met by Decker; thus, the rejection stands.
Applicant further argues the rejection of independent claim 17 stating “For at least reasons similar to those set forth above in relation to claim 1” Decker does not meet all the limitations set forth in the claim. Again, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion. It is to be noted that independent claim 17 sets forth different parameter(s) than independent claim 1; specifically, claim 1 sets forth the stopper extending radially inwardly from a wall of the anchor garage to limit distal travel of an elongate member, however this parameter is not set forth in claim 17, additionally claim 17 sets forth a stopper component operatively associated with the implantable device housing (which seems to be the same structure as the anchor garage set forth in claim 1) and a stopper component operatively associated with said elongate member, i.e. claim 17 includes two separate stopper components, and the stopper component which is associated with the elongate member is the stopper which is configured to limit the distance the elongate member extends the implant device distally out of the housing (unlike claim 1). Thus, Applicant’s argument regarding claim 17, referencing reasons for arguing claim 1, seem to be moot since claim 17 sets forth different parameter than claim 1. Furthermore, Decker teaches all the structural limitations set forth in independent claim 17, as detailed above, and therefore, is deemed to be proper; hence, the rejection stands.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DINAH BARIA whose telephone number is (571)270-1973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10am - 5pm.
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, Jerrah Edwards can be reached at 408-918-7557. 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.
/DINAH BARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 04/20/2026