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. Specification The use of the terms PEBAX ® and VESTAMID ® , which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term s should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore , the term s should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term s. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. 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. 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. Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20200022808 A1 (“Matheny”) . Regarding Claim 1, Matheny discloses a delivery apparatus ( See [408-430] See fig 35 AIO valve deployment device 701 ) comprising: a dock sleeve ( See valve insertion member 702 see also [411-412] ) comprising a body portion and a tip portion located at a distal end of the body portion and configured to be axially movable relative to a docking device for a prosthetic implant ( See F ig . 37 for lumen before tip portion which is considered the distal end 704 with gating mechanism 750 ) , wherein the body portion comprises a lumen configured to receive the docking device therein ( See Fig 37 for docking device inside lumen of body portion ) , wherein the tip portion comprises one or more slits defining one or more flaps, wherein the one or more flaps are movable between a radially collapsed state and a radially expanded state ( See Fig 38 and 39 where door members 752a, 752b, 752c are closed ) , wherein in the radially collapsed state, the one or more flaps cover a distal end of the docking device and occlude the lumen of the body portion ( See Fig 38 and 39 where door members 752a, 752b, 752c are closed ) , and wherein in the radially expanded state, the one or more flaps allow the distal end of the docking device to extend distally from the lumen of the body portion and beyond the tip portion such that the distal end of the docking device is uncovered by the dock sleeve ( See Fig 40 and 41 where docking device extends beyond door members ) . Regarding Claim 2, Matheny further discloses t he delivery apparatus of claim 1, wherein the tip portion comprises one slit dividing the tip portion into two flaps ( See Fig 38 and 39 where door members 752a, 752b, 752c are closed and there are two doors with a slit separating them ) . Regarding Claim 5, Matheny further discloses t he delivery apparatus of claim 1, wherein the tip portion comprises a proximal end connected to the distal end of the body portion and a distal end located distal to the distal end of the body portion ( See fig 37 for lumen that is distal to the rest of the delivery apparatus ) , wherein the tip portion tapers radially inwardly from the proximal end of the tip portion to the distal end of the tip portion (S ee Fig 37 and 39 for the tapered gating mechanism 750 that tapers from the proximal to the distal end ) . Regarding Claim 12, Matheny further discloses a dock sleeve for implanting a docking device at a native valve ( See [408-430] See fig 35 AIO valve deployment device 701 ) , the dock sleeve comprising: a body portion and a tip portion located at a distal end of the body portion, wherein the dock sleeve is configured to be movable between a covered state and an uncovered state ( See F ig . 37 for lumen before tip portion which is considered the distal end 704 with gating mechanism 750 ) , wherein when the dock sleeve is in the covered state, the body portion covers at least a distal portion of the docking device and the tip portion covers a distal end of the docking device ( See F ig . 37 for lumen before tip portion which is considered the distal end 704 with gating mechanism 750 where door members 752a, 752b, 752c are closed ) , wherein when the dock sleeve is in the uncovered state, the distal end of the docking device extends out of the dock sleeve through the tip portion of the dock sleeve ( See Fig 40 and 41 where anchor extends beyond door members) . 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 , 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200022808 A1 (“Matheny”) in view of US 20140018912 A1 (“ Delaloye ”) . Regarding Claim 3, Matheny does not teach the tip portion comprises two crossing slits dividing the tip portion into four flaps , however, Delaloye who teaches of an apparatus for transcatheter aortic valve implantation discloses: wherein the tip portion comprises two crossing slits dividing the tip portion into four flaps (See [107] for description of tip 98 with plurality of segments or petals 104 capable of flexing see Figs 21 and 22 for opened and closed respectively with at least 4 petals with crossing slits to separate the petals) . Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of number of segments of Delaloye for the segmented tip of Matheny. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. (MPEP 2143 I ) . Regarding Claim 4, Matheny does not teach the use of an aperture, however, Delaloye further discloses: wherein the tip portion comprises an aperture located along a longitudinal axis of the dock sleeve (See [107] for description of tip 98 with plurality of segments or petals 104 and a guide wire aperture 100 which is seen in Figs 21 and 22) . Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the tip with an aperture of Delaloye for the aperture-less tip of Matheny. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. (MPEP 2143 I ) . Regarding Claim 6, Matheny does not teach the use of a rounded tip , however, Delaloye further discloses: wherein a cross-sectional profile of the tip portion taken along a longitudinal axis of the dock sleeve forms a rounded shape between the proximal end of the tip portion and the distal end of the tip portion (See [107] for description of tip 98 with plurality of segments or petals 104 that can be conical, tapered or rounded). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the rounded shape of the tip of Delaloye with the tip of Matheny as Delaloye teaches that the rounded or tapered tip helps for introduction into the vasculature and advancement into the aorta (See [106]). Claim (s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200022808 A1 (“Matheny”) in view of US 20150127092 A1 (“ Straubinger ”) . Regarding Claim 7, Matheny does not teach the dock sleeve comprises one or more radiopaque markers , however, Straubinger who teaches of a catheter system for introducing a heart valve discloses: wherein the dock sleeve comprises one or more radiopaque markers, wherein at least one radiopaque marker is disposed on the tip portion (See [73] for tip provided with radiopaque markers) . Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine radiopaque markers of Straubinger with the tip of Matheny as Straubinger teaches that radiopaque markers aid in facilitating fluoroscopic monitoring of progression and positioning of the delivery system to ensure correct placement (See [73]). Regarding Claim 8, Matheny does not teach the one radiopaque marker is disposed at a distal-most area of the tip portion , however, Straubinger further discloses: wherein the at least one radiopaque marker is disposed at a distal-most area of the tip portion (See [73] for tip provided with radiopaque markers) . Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine radiopaque markers of Straubinger with the tip of Matheny as Straubinger teaches that radiopaque markers aid in facilitating fluoroscopic monitoring of progression and positioning of the delivery system to ensure correct placement (See [73]). Regarding Claim 9, Matheny does not teach the one radiopaque marker covers an entire area of the tip portion , however, Straubinger further discloses: wherein the at least one radiopaque marker covers an entire area of the tip portion (See [73] for radiopaque markers on the tip , the catheter tip is described as having a radiopaque characteristic non-limiting to just a singular marker or the entire tip and lumen as described ) . Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine radiopaque markers of Straubinger with the tip of Matheny as Straubinger teaches that radiopaque markers aid in facilitating fluoroscopic monitoring of progression and positioning of the delivery system to ensure correct placement (See [73]). Claim (s) 10 , 11, 13 -1 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200022808 A1 (“Matheny”) in view of US 20110112630 A1 (“ Groothuis ”) . Regarding Claim 10, Matheny does not teach an outer surface compris ing a hydrophilic coating , however, Groothuis who teaches of a catheter system for treating luminal valves discloses: wherein an outer surface of the body portion and an outer surface of the tip portion comprise a hydrophilic coating (See [52] for coatings of the catheters including a hydrophilic coating) . Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the coating of Groothuis with the delivery system of Matheny as Groothuis teaches the lubricious coatings help to facilitate procedures by reducing frictional forces (See [52]). Regarding Claim 11, Matheny does not teach the hydrophilic coating comprises hydrogel , however, Groothuis further discloses: wherein the hydrophilic coating comprises hydrogel (See [52] for coatings of catheters including hydrogels) . Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the coating of Groothuis with the delivery system of Matheny as Groothuis teaches the lubricious coatings help to facilitate procedures by reducing frictional forces (See [52]). Regarding Claim 13, Matheny further discloses a method of creating a dock sleeve configured to hold a docking device ( See valve insertion member 702 see also [411-412] ) , the method comprising: creating a dock sleeve comprising a body portion and a tip portion, wherein the tip portion completely closes a distal end of the body portion ( See F ig . 37 for lumen before tip portion which is considered the distal end 704 with gating mechanism 750 ) ; creating at least one slit on the tip portion ( See Fig 38 and 39 where door members 752a, 752b, 752c are closed and there are two doors with a slit separating them) . Matheny does not teach the step of adding a coating, however, Groothius further discloses: adding a coating material to the dock sleeve (See [52] for coatings of catheters); Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the coating of Groothuis with the delivery system of Matheny as Groothuis teaches the lubricious coatings help to facilitate procedures by reducing frictional forces (See [52]). Regarding Claim 14, Matheny does not teach the adding the coating material to the dock sleeve , however, Groothius further discloses: wherein adding the coating material to the dock sleeve comprises coating at least a portion of an outer surface of the body portion and an outer surface of the tip portion with the coating material (See [52] for coatings of catheters). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the coating of Groothuis with the delivery system of Matheny as Groothuis teaches the lubricious coatings help to facilitate procedures by reducing frictional forces (See [52]). Regarding Claim 15, Matheny does not teach the adding the coating material to the dock sleeve , however, Groothius further discloses: wherein adding the coating material to the dock sleeve comprises dipping the dock sleeve to a solution of the coating material (See [52] for coatings of catheters and dipping processes in [49]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the coating of Groothuis with the delivery system of Matheny as Groothuis teaches the lubricious coatings help to facilitate procedures by reducing frictional forces (See [52]). Regarding Claim 16, Matheny further discloses wherein creating the at least one slit on the tip portion comprises cutting open along a diameter of the tip portion ( See Fig 38 and 39 where door members 752a, 752b, 752c are closed and there are two doors with a slit separating them which inherently had to have been cut to form the doors and spanning from one side of the tip to the other i.e. the diameter). Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200022808 A1 (“Matheny”) in view of US 20110112630 A1 (“ Groothuis ”) as applied to claim s 10, 11, 13 -16 above, and further in view of US 20140018912 A1 (“ Delaloye ”). Regarding Claim 17, Matheny in view of Groothuis does not teach cutting a second slit intersecting the first slit , however, Delaloye who teaches of an apparatus for transcatheter aortic valve implantation discloses: wherein the at least one slit is a first slit, wherein the method further comprises cutting a second slit intersecting the first slit (See [107] for description of tip 98 with plurality of segments or petals 104 capable of flexing see Figs 21 and 22 for opened and closed respectively with at least 4 petals with crossing slits to separate the petals) . Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of number of segments of Delaloye for the segmented tip of Matheny. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. (MPEP 2143 I) . Regarding Claim 18, Matheny in view of Groothuis does not teach an aperture at a center of the tip portion , however, Delaloye further discloses: further comprising creating an aperture at a center of the tip portion (See [107] for description of tip 98 with plurality of segments or petals 104 and a guide wire aperture 100 which is seen in Figs 21 and 22) . Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the tip with an aperture of Delaloye for the aperture-less tip of Matheny. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. (MPEP 2143 I ) . Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200022808 A1 (“Matheny”) in view of US 20110112630 A1 (“ Groothuis ”) as applied to claim s 10, 11, 13 -16 above, and further in view of US 20150127092 A1 (“ Straubinger ”) . Regarding Claim 19, Matheny in view of Groothuis does not teach the radiopaque markers on the dock sleeve , however, Straubinger who teaches of a catheter system for introducing a heart valve discloses: wherein creating the dock sleeve comprises disposing one or more radiopaque markers on the dock sleeve (See [73] for tip provided with radiopaque markers) . Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine radiopaque markers of Straubinger with the tip of Matheny as Straubinger teaches that radiopaque markers aid in facilitating fluoroscopic monitoring of progression and positioning of the delivery system to ensure correct placement (See [73]). Regarding Claim 20, Matheny in view of Groothuis does not teach the radiopaque markers comprises disposing at least one radiopaque marker on the tip portion , however, Straubinger further discloses: wherein disposing the one or more radiopaque markers comprises disposing at least one radiopaque marker on the tip portion (See [73] for tip provided with radiopaque markers) . Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine radiopaque markers of Straubinger with the tip of Matheny as Straubinger teaches that radiopaque markers aid in facilitating fluoroscopic monitoring of progression and positioning of the delivery system to ensure correct placement (See [73]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Lukas M Lehman whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5040 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:30-5 . 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 Jerrah C Edwards can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /L.M.L./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774 /KATRINA M STRANSKY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3700