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. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1- 4 and 9-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 2, 14-15, 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,690,714 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the Patent discloses: Claim 1, the Patent discloses a prosthetic heart valve adapted for post-implant expansion (column 21, lines 1-3), comprising: a valve member including an inner structural support stent (column 21, line 4) formed by a radially outer band located concentrically around and in contact with a radially inner band (column 22, lines 5-7), the support stent having upstanding commissure posts extending in the outflow direction alternating with arcuate inflow cusps (column 21, lines 5-6), the support stent defining an implant circumference that is non-compressible in normal physiological use and has a first diameter (column 21, lines 9-11) , and wherein the outer band includes at least one expandable segment formed by overlapping free ends (column 22, lines 6-9) that permits expansion from the first diameter to a second diameter larger than the first diameter upon application of an outward dilatory force from within the support stent substantially larger than forces associated with normal physiological use (column 21, lines 13-16) . Regarding Claim 2, the Patent discloses wherein there is a single one of the expandable segments (column 22, lines 6-9 and column 22, lines 13-14) . Regarding Claim 3, the Patent discloses wherein the single one of the expandable segments is located at one of the cusps and the inner band is configured to expand below each of the commissure posts when the outer band expands (column 22, lines 6-10 and column 22, lines 14-16) . Regarding Claim 4, the Patent discloses further including a flexible sleeve surrounding the overlapping free ends to maintain alignment of the free ends (column 22, lines 10-12) . Regarding Claim 9, the Patent discloses a plastically- expandable inflow stent frame secured to and projecting from an inflow end of the support stent and having a strength requiring a predetermined expansion force to convert to an expanded state (column 20, lines 6-9) , wherein the inflow stent frame comprises a plurality of expandable struts (column 20, lines 9-11) , and further wherein an upper edge extends continuously around a periphery of the inflow stent frame and defines an implant circumference with a nominal diameter that enables physiological functioning of the valve member when implanted (column 20, lines 11-16) , and wherein the upper edge is configured to expand only a limited amount from the nominal diameter to an enlarged diameter larger than the nominal diameter upon application of an outward dilatory force from within the outflow end substantially larger than forces associated with normal physiological use, and wherein the upper edge undulates with peaks and valleys to at least partially conform to the inflow end of the support stent (column 20, lines 16-24) . Regarding Claim 10, the Patent discloses wherein the inflow stent frame is configured to expand below each of the support stent commissures upon application of the outward dilatory force (column 20, lines 46-49) . Claims 1-4 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12, 14-15, 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,375,310 . Regarding Claim 1, the Patent discloses a prosthetic heart valve adapted for post-implant expansion (column 35, lines 65-67), comprising: a valve member including an inner structural support stent formed by a radially outer band located concentrically around and in contact with a radially inner band (column 36, lines 1-4), the support stent having upstanding commissure posts extending in the outflow direction alternating with arcuate inflow cusps (column 36, lines 1-4), the support stent defining an implant circumference that is non-compressible in normal physiological use and has a first diameter (column 36, lines 7-9), and wherein the outer band includes at least one expandable segment formed by overlapping free ends (column 22, lines 6-9) that permits expansion from the first diameter to a second diameter larger than the first diameter upon application of an outward dilatory force from within the support stent substantially larger than forces associated with normal physiological use (column 36, lines 9-15). Regarding Claim 2, the Patent discloses wherein there is a single one of the expandable segments (column 36, lines 9-12). Regarding Claim 3, the Patent discloses wherein the single one of the expandable segments is located at one of the cusps and the inner band is configured to expand below each of the commissure posts when the outer band expands (column 36, lines 9-12 and column 36, lines 15-25). Regarding Claim 4, the Patent discloses further including a flexible sleeve surrounding the overlapping free ends to maintain alignment of the free ends (column 36, lines 19-21). Regarding Claim 8, the Patent discloses wherein the overlapping free ends each further includes a circumferentially-oriented slot (column 36, lines 35-37). Claims 11- 1 2 , 15-17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim12, 14-15, 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,690,714 in view of Chung et al. U.S. Publication 2014/0188221 A1 . Regarding Claim 11, the Patent discloses a prosthetic heart valve adapted for post-implant expansion (column 19 , lines 53-55 and column 21, lines 1-2 ) , comprising: a valve member including an inner structural support stent (column 19, line 56 and column 21, line 4 ) formed by a radially outer band located concentrically around and in contact with a radially inner band (column 20, lines 25-27 and column 22, lines 5-7 ) , the support stent having upstanding commissure posts extending in the outflow direction alternating with arcuate inflow cusps (column 19, lines 56-58 and column 21, lines 4-8 ) , the support stent defining an implant circumference that is non-compressible in normal physiological use and has a first diameter (column 19 , lines 60-63 and column 21, lines 8-11 ) , and wherein the inner band includes expandable segments ( column 20, lines 61-64 and column 22, lines 7-9 ) that expands from the first diameter to a second diameter larger than the first diameter upon application of an outward dilatory force from within the support stent substantially larger than forces associated with normal physiological use (column 1 9 , lines 64 - 6 7 and column 20, line 1 and column 21, lines 12-16 ) . However, the Patent does not expressly disclose the expandable segments formed by weakened areas located below each of the commissure posts . Chung et al. teaches support stent 486 comprising an inner band 498 having upstanding commissure posts 494 and expandable segment 484 centered underneath the commissure posts 494, wherein the outward expansion force applied to the stent 486 will cause the expandable segment 484 to stretch out below the commissure post (paragraph [0149-0150] and as seen in Figure 20B) therefore enabling post-implant expansion while retaining the structural integrity of the valve (paragraphs [0149-0150]). 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 inner band to further include an expandable segment centered underneath the commissure posts as taught by Chung for the purpose of enabling post-implant expansion while retaining the structural integrity of the valve. Regarding Claim 12, the Patent discloses wherein the weakened include a vertical score line through the thickness of band (column 20, lines 50-53) . Regarding Claim 15, the Patent discloses wherein the outer band includes at least one expandable segment formed by overlapping free ends (column 20, lines 27-28) that permits expansion of the outer band from the first diameter to a second diameter upon application of the outward dilatory force (column 19, lines 60-67) . Regarding Claim 16, the Patent discloses wherein there is a single one of the expandable segments (column 20, lines 28-29) . Regarding Claim 17, the Patent discloses further including a flexible sleeve surrounding the overlapping free ends to maintain alignment of the free ends (column 20, lines 30-32) . Regarding Claim 20, the Patent discloses a plastically-expandable inflow stent frame secured to and projecting from an inflow end of the support stent and having a strength requiring a predetermined expansion force to convert to an expanded state, and wherein an outflow end of the stent frame is formed by an outflow row strut that extends continuously around a periphery of the inflow stent frame and defines an implant circumference with a nominal diameter that enables physiological functioning of the valve member when implanted, and wherein the outflow row strut has a series of spaced V-shaped notches that permit limited expansion and contraction (column 21, lines 22-32). Claim Objections The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim. A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Claim 8 depends from independent claim 11, however this claim appears after the dependent claim. Furthermore, claim 8 is directed to “the overlapping free ends” which is recited in claim 1. Therefore, for proper antecedent basis, the examiner assumes claim 8 should have been dependent from claim 1 not claim 11. Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1 -14 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outflow direction" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 includes the limitation “an inner structural support stent formed by a radially outer band.” However, the specification does not provide support for an inner support stent to be formed by a radially outer band. The specification provides support for a prosthetic heart valve support stent having a radially outer band located concentrically around and attached to a radially inner band having a single one of the expandable segments (see paragraph [0012]). Therefore, the limitation is unclear and rendered indefinite. Claim 1 only recites “a valve member including an inner structural support stent formed by a radially outer band located concentrically around and in contact with a radially inner band, the support stent having upstanding commissure posts .” It is unclear which structure (the outer band or the inner band) of the support stent comprises the upstanding commissure posts. Therefore, the limitation is rendered indefinite. 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. T he 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)(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 (s) 1-2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chung et al. U.S. Publication 2014/0188221 A1 . The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. Regarding Claim 1, Chung et al. discloses a prosthetic heart valve as seen in Figures 11A-11F adapted for post-implant expansion (paragraphs [0012-0013]) , comprising: a valve member including an inner structural support stent 244 formed by a radially outer band 242 located concentrically around and in contact with a radially inner band 244 , the support stent having upstanding commissure posts 262 extending in the outflow direction alternating with arcuate inflow cusps (as seen in Figures 11A- 1 1 E and annotated 11 F and paragraphs [0109-0111] ) , the support stent defining an implant circumference that is non-compressible in normal physiological use and has a first diameter (paragraph [0013]) , and wherein the outer band includes at least one expandable segment 250 formed by overlapping free ends 254 that permits expansion from the first diameter to a second diameter larger than the first diameter upon application of an outward dilatory force from within the support stent substantially larger than forces associated with normal physiological use (paragraphs [0014] , [0108] and [0111] and as seen in Figures 11B-11D, 12A-13C) . Regarding Claim 2, Chung et al. discloses wherein there is a single one of the expandable segments 250 (paragraph [0108]). Regarding Claim 8, Chung et al. discloses wherein the overlapping free ends each further includes a circumferentially-oriented slot 252 (as seen in Figures 11A-11F). 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) 3- 7 and 11- 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. U.S. Publication 2014/0188221 A1 . Regarding Claim 3, Chung et al. discloses wherein the single one of the expandable segments 250 is located at one of the cusps (as seen in the annotated Figure 11F above). However, in the embodiment used in the rejection above, Figures 11A-11F does not expressly disclose the inner band is configured to expand below each of the commissure posts when the outer band expands . In an alternative embodiment as seen in Figure 20B, Chung et al. teaches support stent 486 comprising an inner band 498 having upstanding commissure posts 494 and expandable segment 484 centered underneath the commissure posts 494, wherein the outward expansion force applied to the stent 486 will cause the expandable segment 484 to stretch out below the commissure post (paragraph [0149-0150] and as seen in Figure 20B) therefore enabling post-implant expansion while retaining the structural integrity of the valve (paragraphs [0149-0150]). 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 Chung’s inner band in Figures 11A-11F to further include an expandable segment centered underneath the commissure posts as taught in Figure 20B for the purpose of enabling post-implant expansion while retaining the structural integrity of the valve. Regarding Claim 4 , in the embodiment used in the rejection above, Figures 11A-11F does not expressly disclose a flexible sleeve surrounding the overlapping free ends to maintain alignment of the free ends . In an alternative embodiment as seen in Figures 13A-13C, Chung et al. teaches an outer band 276 having at least one expandable segment formed by overlapping free ends 277a, 277b that permits expansion from the first diameter to a second diameter larger (paragraph [0122]) and a sleeve 278 that couples the free ends to maintain alignment of the free ends and degrades after implantation to permit easy expansion of the outer band 276 (paragraph [0122]). 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 Chung’s inner band in Figures 11A-11F to further include a sleeve surrounding the overlapping free ends as taught by in Figures 13A-13C for the purpose of coupling the free ends to maintain alignment of the free ends and degrading after implantation to permit easy expansion of the outer band. Regarding Claim 5 , in the embodiment used in the rejection above, Figures 11A-11F does not expressly disclose wherein the overlapping free ends each terminate in an axially enlarged head that frictionally engages the flexible sleeve to resist sliding movement of the overlapping free ends with respect to one another . In an alternative embodiment as seen in Figures 12A-13C, Chung et al. teaches an outer band 273 having an least one expandable segment formed by overlapping free ends 274a, 274b that permits expansion from the first diameter to a second diameter larger (paragraph [0119]), wherein the overlapping free ends each terminate in an axially enlarged head 275 (bulbous head, see paragraphs [0014], [0119]) and a sleeve 278 as seen in Figures 13A-13C for the purpose of providing a minimum amount of friction to maintain alignment of the free ends and degrading after implantation to permit easy expansion of the outer band 276 (paragraph [0122]). 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 Chung’s inner band in Figures 11A-11F to further include overlapping free ends each terminate in an axially enlarged head as taught in Figures 12A-12D and a sleeve surrounding the overlapping free ends as taught in Figures 13A-13C for the purpose of providing a minimum amount of friction to maintain alignment of the free ends and degrading after implantation to permit easy expansion of the outer band. Regarding Claims 6, 7, Chung et al. discloses the outer band 242 is formed from metal (paragraphs [0026], [0028] and paragraph [0109]). However, in the embodiment used in the rejection above Figures 11A-11F does not expressly disclose wherein the overlapping free ends are separated by a sliding insert formed of a lubricious material , wherein the lubricious material is polyester . In an alternative embodiment as seen in Figures 13A-13C, Chung et al. teaches an outer band 276 having at least one expandable segment formed by overlapping free ends 277a, 277b that permits expansion from the first diameter to a second diameter larger (paragraph [0122]) and an insert 278 that separates the free ends is formed of polyester to allow a sliding engagement of the free ends 277a, 277b and degrades after implantation to permit easy expansion of the outer band 276 (paragraph [0122]). 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 Chung’s outer band in Figure s 11A-11F to further include an insert separating the overlapping free ends as taught by in Figures 13A-13C for the purpose of allowing a sliding engagement of the free ends and can degrade after implantation to permit easy expansion of the outer band. Regarding Claim 11, Regarding Claim 11, Chung et al. discloses a prosthetic heart valve 202 adapted for post-implant expansion (paragraphs [0012-0013], [0030] and [0032]), comprising: a valve member including an inner structural support stent 206 formed by a radially outer band 204 located concentrically around and in contact with a radially inner band 206 (see Figure 10 and paragraphs [0106-0107]), the support stent having upstanding commissure posts 206 extending in the outflow direction alternating with arcuate inflow cusps (see Figure 10), the support stent defining an implant circumference that is non-compressible in normal physiological use and has a first diameter (paragraph [0013]), and wherein the inner band 206 includes expandable segments 208 that enable the inner band to rupture and expand from the first diameter to a second diameter larger than the first diameter upon application of an outward dilatory force from within the support stent substantially larger than forces associated with normal physiological use (paragraphs [0013-0014], [0095], [0106-0107]). However, in the embodiment used in the rejection above, Figure 10 does not expressly disclose the inner band is configured to expand below each of the commissure posts when the outer band expands . In an alternative embodiment as seen in Figure 20D, Chung et al. teaches support stent comprising an inner band 498 having upstanding commissure posts 494 and expandable segments 502 formed by weakened areas located below each commissure posts (as seen in Figure 20D and paragraph [0150]), wherein the outward expansion force applied to the stent will cause the expandable segment 502 to stretch out below the commissure post (paragraph [0149-0150] and as seen in Figure 20D) and break therefore enabling post-implant expansion of commissure posts of the stent while retaining the structural integrity of the valve (paragraphs [0149-0150]). 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 Chung’s inner band in Figure 10 to further include an expandable segment in the form of weakened regions located below each commissure posts as taught in Figure 20 D for the purpose of enabling post-implant expansion while retaining the structural integrity of the valve. Regarding Claim 12, in the embodiment used in the rejection above, Figure 10 does not expressly disclose wherein the weakened include a vertical score line through the thickness of band . However, in an alternative embodiment as seen in Figure 20A, Chung et al. teaches an inner band 480 comprising expandable segments 482 in the form of weakened areas including a vertical score line through the thickness of the band 480 that will rupture to permit expansion of the valve (paragraph [0148]). 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 Chung’s inner band in Figure 10 to further include weakened areas including a vertical score line through the thickness of the band as taught in Figure 20A for the purpose of enabling post-implant expansion of the valve. Regarding Claim 13, in the embodiment used in the rejection above, Figure 10 does not expressly disclose wherein the weakened areas further include a through hole located in each commissure post at an upper end of the vertical score line . In an alternative embodiment as seen in Figure 20D, Chung et al. teaches support stent comprising an inner band 498 having upstanding commissure posts 494 and expandable segments 502 formed by weakened areas located below each commissure posts and a through hole located in each commissure post at an upper end of the vertical score line (see large gap/window above the score line 502 and as seen in Figure 20D and paragraph [0150]), wherein the outward expansion force applied to the stent will cause the expandable segment 502 and hole above the weakened area to stretch out the commissure post (paragraph [0149-0150] and as seen in Figure 20D) therefore enabling post-implant expansion of commissure posts of the stent while retaining the structural integrity of the valve (paragraphs [0149-0150]). 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 Chung’s inner band in Figure 10 to further include an expandable segment in the form of weakened regions and a hole above the weakened area located in each commissure posts as taught in Figure 20D for the purpose of enabling post-implant expansion while retaining the structural integrity of the valve. Regarding Claim 14, Chung et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the weakened areas further include a through hole located in each commissure post at a lower end of the vertical score line . However, Chung et al. teaches different types of weakened areas includes holes having breakable segments (see Figure 11C), notches (see Figure 15, 18A), vertical score line (see Figure 20A) that can be usable alone or in combination (paragraphs [0107], [0109]) for the purpose of creating weakened spots on the band that will break to allow post-implant expansion of the band (paragraphs [0013], [0107], [0109]). 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 Chung’s weakened area in Figure 10 to further include a hole located in each commissure post at a lower end of a vertical score line to further enhance the breakage point of the band and allow post-implant expansion at the commissure of the band. Regarding Claim 15, 16, in the embodiment used in the rejection above, Figure 10 does not expressly disclose wherein the outer band includes a single expandable segment formed by overlapping free ends that permits expansion of the outer band from the first diameter to a second diameter upon application of the outward dilatory force . In an alternative embodiment as seen in Figures 11A-11F, Chung et al. teaches an outer band 240 comprises a single expandable segment 250 formed by overlapping free ends 254 that permits expansion from the first diameter to a second diameter larger than the first diameter upon application of an outward dilatory force f or the purpose of enabling post-implant expansion while retaining the structural integrity of the valve (paragraphs [0014], [0108 -0109 ] and [0111] and as seen in Figures 11B-11D, 12A-13C) . 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 Chung’s outer band in Figure 10 to further include a single expandable segment formed by overlapping free ends as taught in Figures 11A-11F for the purpose of permitting expansion from a first diameter to a second diameter to enable post-implant expansion while retaining the structural integrity of the valve. Regarding Claim 17, in the embodiment used in the rejection above, Figure 10 does not expressly disclose a flexible sleeve surrounding the overlapping free ends to maintain alignment of the free ends . In an alternative embodiment as seen in Figures 13A-13C, Chung et al. teaches an outer band 276 having at least one expandable segment formed by overlapping free ends 277a, 277b that permits expansion from the first diameter to a second diameter larger (paragraph [0122]) and a sleeve 278 that couples the free ends to maintain alignment of the free ends and degrades after implantation to permit easy expansion of the outer band 276 (paragraph [0122]). 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 Chung’s inner band in Figure 10 to further include a sleeve surrounding the overlapping free ends as taught by in Figures 13A-13C for the purpose of coupling the free ends to maintain alignment of the free ends and degrading after implantation to permit easy expansion of the outer band. Regarding Claim 18, Chung et al. discloses the outer band 242 is formed from metal (paragraphs [0005-0006], [0015], [0026], [0028]). However, in the embodiment used in the rejection above Figure 10 does not expressly disclose wherein the overlapping free ends are separated by a sliding insert formed of a lubricious material , wherein the lubricious material is polyester . In an alternative embodiment as seen in Figures 13A-13C, Chung et al. teaches an outer band 276 having at least one expandable segment formed by overlapping free ends 277a, 277b that permits expansion from the first diameter to a second diameter larger (paragraph [0122]) and an insert 278 that separates the free ends is formed of polyester to allow a sliding engagement of the free ends 277a, 277b and degrades after implantation to permit easy expansion of the outer band 276 (paragraph [0122]). 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 Chung’s outer band in Figure 10 to further include an insert separating the overlapping free ends as taught by in Figures 13A-13C for the purpose of allowing a sliding engagement of the free ends and can degrade after implantation to permit easy expansion of the outer band. Regarding Claim s 8, 19 , in the embodiment used in the rejection, Figure 10 does not expressly disclose wherein the overlapping free ends each further includes a circumferentially-oriented slot . In an alternative embodiment as seen in Figures 11A-11F, Chung et al. teaches an outer band 240 comprises a single expandable segment 250 formed by overlapping free ends 254, wherein the overlapping free ends 254 includes a circumferentially-oriented slot 252 for the purpose of aligning the overlapping free ends and coupling the free ends together via the holes 252 and allowing a suture/hole combination to form a weakened spot on the band (paragraph [0108] and as seen in Figures 11A-11D) to permit expansion from the first diameter to a second diameter larger than the first diameter upon application of an outward dilatory force f or the purpose of enabling post-implant expansion while retaining the structural integrity of the valve (paragraphs [0014], [0108-0109] and [0111] and as seen in Figures 11B-11D, 12A-13C) . 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 Chung’s outer band in Figure 10 to further include a single expandable segment formed by overlapping free ends with circumferentially-oriented slot as taught in Figures 11A-11F for the purpose of permitting expansion from a first diameter to a second diameter to enable post-implant expansion while retaining the structural integrity of the valve. Claim(s) 9 -10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. U.S. Publication 2014/0188221 A1 in view of Conklin et al. U.S. Publication 2012/0078357 A1 . Regarding Claim 9, in the embodiment used in the rejection above, Figures 11A-11F does not expressly disclose further including a plastically-expandable inflow stent frame secured to and projecting from an inflow end of the support stent and having a strength requiring a predetermined expansion force to convert to an expanded state, wherein the inflow stent frame comprises a plurality of expandable struts . In an alternative embodiment as seen in Figures 14A-14F, Chung et al. teaches a plasticall y expandable inflow stent frame 286 secured to and projecting from an inflow end of the support stent 284 and having a strength requiring a predetermined expansion force to convert to an expanded state (paragraphs [0124-0127]) , wherein the inflow stent frame comprises a plurality of expandable struts (paragraph [0124]) , and further wherein an upper edge extends continuously around a periphery of the inflow (the plurality of undulations forming peaks and troughs extends continuously around the periphery of the inflow end) for the purpose of having a lower frame stent that is expandable to help anchor the valve in place (paragraph [0125]). 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 Chung’s inner band in Figures 11A-11F to further include a lower frame stent comprising a plurality of expandable struts as taught in Figures 14A-14F for the purpose of having a lower frame stent that is expandable to help anchor the valve in place. However, Chung et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the upper edge is configured to expand only a limited amount from the nominal diameter to an enlarged diameter larger than the nominal diameter upon application of an outward dilatory force from within the outflow end substantially larger than forces associated with normal physiological use, and wherein the upper edge undulates with peaks and valleys to at least partially conform to the inflow end of the support stent . Conklin teaches a prosthetic heart valve in the same field of endeavor comprising a support stent 604 and a plastically-expandable inflow stent frame 602 having an upper edge 620 that undulates with peaks and valley to conform to the inflow end of the support stent 604 and is configured to expand only a limited amount from the nominal diameter for the purpose of limiting the diameter of the stent frame adjacent the support stent so that it is no greater than the expanded diameter of the support stent and prevent over-expansion of the stent frame and support stent (paragraphs [0175-0176]). 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 Chung’s upper edge to further include undulations with peaks and valley to conform to the inflow end of the support stent as taught in Conklin for the purpose of having circumferential struts that increases the radial stiffness of the stent frame and prevent over-expansion of the stent frame and support stent (paragraphs [0175-0176]). Regarding Claim 10, Chung et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the inflow stent frame is configured to expand below each of the support stent commissures upon application of the outward dilatory force . Conklin teaches a prosthetic heart valve in the same field of endeavor comprising a support stent 604 and a plastically-expandable inflow stent frame 602, the support stent 604 extends outwardly from the inflow stent frame and allows the expansion of the inflow stent frame below the support stent (including below the commissures, see Figure 20) such that the support stent flares to frictionally engage the native valve annulus and prevent the migration of the prosthetic valve. 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 Chung’s support stent to flare beyond the inflow stent frame in the expanded state as taught by Conklin such that the inflow stent frame expands below the support stent commissures to allow the support stent to frictionally engage the native valve annulus and prevent the migration of the prosthetic valve. 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