DEAILTED 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 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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" by Scholz et al. WO 2010111491 A1, herein referred to as Scholz. Regarding claim 1, Scholz discloses an apparatus, comprising an implant for implantation at a heart valve of a subject ( pg 4, lines 8-13 teaches capable of being used for mucosal tissue placement. Cardiac tissue is consider mucosal.) , the implant comprising: a frame ( pg 5, Para 3 teaches a film, can be used as a frame ); and a textile mounted on the frame ( pg 5, Para 3 teaches combinations ) the textile comprising fibers formed from a mixture of: a polymer (pg 5, Para 3) ; and an additive molecule that comprises: a polyurethane backbone (pg 5, Para 3 and Pg 26 para 2) , and one or more fluorinated end-groups at at least one end of the backbone ( pg 19 “ non-ionic Fluorochemical Surfactants section ) . Regarding claim 2, Scholz discloses wherein the textile comprises an air texturized yarn that includes the fibers ( Pg 2, para 3, polyester is air texturized ). Regarding claim 3, Scholz discloses wherein the textile comprises a core-spun yarn that includes the fibers (Pg 2, para 3, polyester is core-spin) . Regarding claim 4, Scholz discloses wherein the textile comprises a yarn that is formed from (i) the fibers formed from the mixture (Pg 7, para 3) , and (ii) other fibers that are not formed from the mixture Pg 2, para 3 . Regarding claim 5, Scholz discloses wherein the mixture included the additive molecule at 1-5 percent by mass (pg 19 “ non-ionic Fluorochemical Surfactants section”: Teaches short fluro-groups and longer aliphatic chains which would yield a lower percent of mass in additive molecule ) . Regarding claim 6, Scholz discloses wherein the textile is an electrospun textile (Pg 2, para 3, polyester is electrospun ). Regarding claim 7, Scholz discloses wherein the textile is a woven textile ( pg 1, para 1 ). Regarding claim 8, Scholz discloses wherein the textile is a knitted textile ( pg 1, para 1 ) . Regarding claim 9, Scholz discloses wherein the textile is a nonwoven textile (pg 1, para 1) . Regarding claim 10, Scholz discloses wherein the polymer is an elastomer ( pg 26 paragraph 1, silicon is an elastomer). Regarding claim 11, Scholz discloses wherein the additive molecule is configured to promote a thin layer of endothelium to form a smooth ( pg 26, para 3 “film”) benign surface ( pg 3, para 2, “biocompatible” is benign to applied area) on the textile while preventing overthickening of the layer on the textile ( pg 25, teaches lower thickness) . Regarding claim 12, Scholz discloses wherein the textile is a fabric with which at least part of the frame is dressed ( pg 3 para 3 teaches laminates). Regarding claim 13, Scholz discloses wherein the textile is a fabric with which at least part of the frame is dressed ( pg 3 para 3 teaches laminates). Regarding claim 14, Scholz discloses wherein the textile is a suture that is stitched onto at least part of the frame (pg 26, para 2). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholz in view of Stark et al. EP 2076294 B1, herein referred to as Stark . Regarding claim 15, Scholz discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, but does not disclose explicitly wherein the implant is an annuloplasty structure. Stark teaches wherein the implant is an annuloplasty structure [0008]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Scholz to incorporate wherein the implant is an annuloplasty structure as taught and suggested by Stark in order to provide support a cavity [0008]. Regarding claim 16, the combination of Scholz and Stark discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1 teaches wherein the implant is a prosthetic valve ( pg 4, lines 8-13 teaches capable of being used for mucosal tissue placement. capable of being a valve ), the frame is a stent frame that is dressed with the textile ( pg 4, lines 8-13 teaches capable of being used for mucosal tissue placement. capable of being a stent frame) . Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholz in view of Levi et al. 20190046314 A1 , herein referred to as Levi . Regarding claim 17, Scholz discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the stent frame is dressed with the textile in a manner that directs blood flow through the prosthetic valve . Levi teaches Levi teaches wherein the stent frame (Fig 1, frame 12) is dressed with the textile (Fig 1, skirt 42) in a manner that directs blood flow through the prosthetic valve ( Levi Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Scholz to incorporate wherein the stent frame is dressed with the textile in a manner that directs blood flow through the prosthetic valve as taught and suggested but Levi in order to mimic natural blood flow (Abstract Levi teaches stopping mitral regurgitation). Regarding claim 18, the combination of Scholz and Levi discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1 7 teaches wherein the stent frame is dressed with the textile in a manner that inhibits paravalvular leakage between the prosthetic valve and the heart valve (Levi [0040]). Regarding claim 19, the combination of Scholz and Levi discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1 7 teaches wherein: the heart valve ( Levi Fig 1, valve 10 ) has a first leaflet and an opposing leaflet ( Levi Fig 1, leaflet 12, oppose each other as claimed ), a heart chamber being upstream of the heart valve (Levi [0004] , the frame is defined at least in part by a flexible wire ( Levi Fig 1, 12 frame, [0143] cables used), and the implant comprises: an interface; and a flexible coaptation portion ( Levi Fig 1, strut 32 ), coupled to the interface ( Levi Fig 1 ), and comprising: a loop of the flexible wire ( Figure 1, hole for strut is a loop) , the loop defining an aperture therethrough ( Levi Fig 1 ); and the textile, coupled to the wire and covering at least part of the aperture ( Levi Fig 1 ); and an anchor ( Levi Fig, outflow end 16), configured to anchor the interface to a site in the heart such that the coaptation portion extends over the first leaflet toward the opposing leaflet in a manner in which ( Levi [0064]) , during ventricular systole of the heart (Levi Abstract, part of natural heart function and would function as claimed), the first leaflet and the opposing leaflet coapt against the coaptation portion ( Levi [0064]) . Regarding claim 20, the combination of Scholz and Levi discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1 9 teaches wherein the coaptation portion has an open part in which the aperture is not covered by the textile ( Levi Fig 1). Regarding claim 21, the combination of Scholz and Levi discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1 9 teaches further comprising a delivery system comprising: a shaft ( Levi ( Fig 21, elongate shaft 404) , configured to, via engagement with the interface, transluminally position the interface is at the site ( Levi [0108]) , and an anchor driver, configured to anchor the interface to the site by driving the anchor into the tissue ([0108] Levi teaches actuator driving delivery and anchoring at annulus ). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Adrian Flores whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1450 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 9-5 . 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 Melanie Tyson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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://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. /A.F./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774 /THOMAS C BARRETT/ SPE, Art Unit 3799