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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 and 19 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art Kovalsky et al. U.S. Publication 2012/0053682 A1 discloses an artificial valve, comprising a top stent, a middle stent and a bottom stent, wherein the top stent, the middle stent and the bottom stent are connected in sequence; the top stent is circumferentially provided with at least three locking stents; the middle stent is provided with at least three valve leaflet fixing parts; in an compressed state of the locking end, a diameter of a circumference where an uppermost edges of the three valve leaflet fixing parts are located is Φ1, and in a expanded state, the diameter of the circumference where the uppermost edges of the the three valve leaflet fixing parts are located is Ф2; wherein Ф2 is larger than Ф1. However, Kovalsky et al. does not expressly disclose each of the locking stents has a locking end at a top and the diameter is based on the locked state and unlocked state of the locking end and the diameter of the circumference where the uppermost edges of the three-valve leaflet fixing parts are higher than or equal to 74% of Ф1.
Claims 15-16 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.
The closest prior art Essinger et al. discloses an artificial valve, comprising a top stent, a middle stent and a bottom stent, wherein the top stent, the middle stent and the bottom stent are connected in sequence; the top stent is circumferentially provided with at least three locking stents (3 arches), which have locking ends at top ends (the arches are looped and capable of being having “locking ends”); the middle stent is provided with valve leaflet fixing parts and suture rods. However, Essinger et al. does not expressly disclose a maximum area of a cross section of the locking stent which is perpendicular to a central axis of the artificial valve is 20% to 50% of a minimum area of a cross section of the suture rod which is perpendicular to the central axis of the artificial valve. In addition, Essinger et al. does not expressly disclose the middle stent comprises three locking stent or six locking stents and structural stiffness of the locking end of each of the locking stents is 5% to 50% of the structural stiffness of each of the suture rods.
Claims 18 is allowed. Essinger et al. does not expressly disclose a maximum area of a cross section of the locking stent which is perpendicular to a central axis of the artificial valve is 20% to 50% of a minimum area of a cross section of the suture rod which is perpendicular to the central axis of the artificial valve.
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Essinger et al. WO 2011/051043 A1 in view of Rabkin et al. U.S. Publication 2004/0111147 A1.
Regarding Claim 14, Essinger et al. discloses an artificial valve 100 as seen in Figures 1-3, comprising a top stent 1, a middle stent 3 and a bottom stent 4, wherein the top stent 1, the middle stent 3 and the bottom stent 4 are connected in sequence; the top stent 1 is circumferentially provided with at least three locking stents (3 arches), which have locking ends at top ends (the arches are looped and capable of being having “locking ends”); the middle stent 3 is provided with valve leaflet 102 fixing parts (paragraphs [0075-0079] and [0081] and as seen in Figures 1, 7-8). However, Essinger et al. does not expressly disclose the structural stiffness of the top stent is smaller than structural stiffness of the middle stent. Rabkin et al. teaches a stent in the same field of endeavor comprising a top stent 14 and a middle stent 12 (paragraph [0061]), wherein the top stent 12 having a plurality of crowns 22 (or locking stents) having three leaves (paragraph [0077]) that acts as a capturing hook forming a retrieval device to the catheter, wherein the crown is flexible so that it can move inward during retrieval or repositioning (paragraph [0079] and [0096]) and the middle stent 12 having a plurality of closed cell rings (paragraph [0062]) to impart greater radial strength and less flexibility (paragraph [0102-0103]). 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 Essinger’s top stent to have a smaller stiffness than the middle stent as taught by Rabkin et al. for the purpose of imparting greater radial strength to the body of the stent and increased flexibility to the crown of the stent to allow the top stent to be flexible to form said “locking ends” that move inward during retrieval or repositioning.
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