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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2,4-5, and 7-10 of copending Application 18/872,794 (USPAP 2026/0256580) in view of Desrosiers et al. (US PG Pub No. 2017/0231765).
Regarding claim 1 of the present case, Claim 1 of US 2026/0256580 A1 recites a valve delivery system (Claim 1, line 1), comprising: a valve (Claim 1, line 1) provided with a fixing part (Claim 1, line 2); and a delivery device (Claim 1, lines 2-3), wherein the delivery device comprises: a bolt wire assembly (Claim 1, line 10) comprising a bolt wire (Claim 1, lines 10-11) extending along an axial direction of the delivery device (Claim 1, lines 12-13); and a withdrawing assembly (Claim 1, line 4), comprising a fixing claw (Claim 1, line 5), the fixing claw is provided with a limiting hole (Claim 1, line 7), and the fixing part is able to pass through the limiting hole (Claim 1, lines 8-9); wherein when the fixing part passes through the limiting hole (Claim 1, lines 14-15) and the bolt wire passes through a fixing hole of the fixing part (Claim 1, lines 15-16), and the valve is in a connected state (Claim 1, line 16); or when the bolt wire is separated from the fixing hole (Claim 1, lines 19-20), the fixing part is able to be separated from the limiting hole (Claim 1, lines 21-22), and the valve is in an unhooked state (Claim 1, line 23).
Claim 1 of US 2026/0256580 A1 fails to disclose wherein the fixing claw is elastic, the valve is able to be partially expanded under an action of its own elastic force, the fixing part is unable to be separated from the limiting hole. Desrosiers also discloses a valve delivery system (Figs. 1-16, prosthetic implant delivery assembly 100), comprising: a valve (Figs. 1-16, prosthetic heart valve 102) provided with a fixing part (Paragraph [0050], Fig. 3, apices 118); a delivery device (Figs. 1-16, delivery apparatus 104), a fixing claw (Figs. 5A-6, distal end 171 of arms 150), and a limiting hole (Figs. 5A-6, windows 170). Desrosiers teaches wherein the fixing claw is elastic (Paragraph [0080], 171 of 150 is part of 126 which can be made with nitinol, an elastic material), the valve is able to be partially (Figs. 14-16) expanded under an action of its own elastic force (Paragraph [0051]), the fixing part (118) is unable to be separated (Paragraph [0059], Fig. 5B, locking arm 172) from the limiting hole (170). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the valve delivery system recited in 2026/0256580 A1 wherein the fixing claw is elastic, the valve is able to be partially expanded under an action of its own elastic force, the fixing part is unable to be separated from the limiting hole, as taught by Desrosiers, in order to secure the valve on the valve delivery system (Paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 2 of the present case, claim 7 of US 2026/0256580 A1 recites wherein the withdrawing assembly (Claim 7, line 2) is provided with a through hole (Claim 7, lines 2-3), and the bolt wire is able to pass through the through hole and cooperate with the fixing hole (Claim 7, lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 3 of the present case, claim 8 of US 2026/0256580 A1 recites wherein the withdrawing assembly is provided with an avoidance part (Claim 8, lines 2-3), and the avoidance part is correspondingly arranged with the fixing claw and is in communication with the through hole.
Regarding claim 4 of the present case, claim 1 of US 2026/0256580 A1 recites a fixing claw (Claim 1, line 2), a bolt wire assembly (Claim 1, line 10), and a limiting hole (Claim 1, line 7). Claim 1 of US 2026/0256580 A1 fails to disclose wherein an end of the fixing claw is connected to an end of the withdrawing assembly close to the bolt wire assembly, and another end of the fixing claw is provided with the limiting hole; and a size of the another end of the fixing claw provided with the limiting hole is larger than a size of the end of the fixing claw connected to the end of the withdrawing assembly close to the bolt wire assembly.
Desrosiers discloses wherein an end (see annotated Fig. 5A above) of the fixing claw (Figs. 5A-6, distal end 171 of arms 150) is connected to an end (see annotated Fig. 5A above) of the withdrawing assembly (Figs. 5A-6, release catheter 126) close to the bolt wire assembly (Fig. 1, 104 comprises locking catheter 128), and another end of the fixing claw (Figs. 5A-6, distal end 171 of arms 150) is provided with the limiting hole (Figs. 5A-6, windows 170); and a size of the another end (171) of the fixing claw (Figs. 5A-6, distal end 171 of arms 150) provided with the limiting hole (170) is larger than a size of the end (see annotated Fig. 5A below) of the fixing claw (171 of 150) connected to the end (see annotated Fig. 5A below) of the withdrawing assembly (126) close to the bolt wire assembly (104 comprises locking catheter 128). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the valve delivery system recited in 2026/0256580 A1 wherein an end of the fixing claw is connected to an end of the withdrawing assembly close to the bolt wire assembly, and another end of the fixing claw is provided with the limiting hole; and a size of the another end of the fixing claw provided with the limiting hole is larger than a size of the end of the fixing claw connected to the end of the withdrawing assembly close to the bolt wire assembly, as taught by Desrosiers, in order to secure the valve on the valve delivery system (Paragraph [0059]).
PNG
media_image1.png
250
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 of the present case is anticipated by claims 1 and 2 of US 2026/0256580 A1.
Claim 6 of the present case is anticipated by claim 9 of US 2026/0256580 A1.
Claim 7 of the present case is anticipated by claim 4 of US 2026/0256580 A1.
Claim 8 of the present case is anticipated by claim 10 of US 2026/0256580 A1.
Claim 9 of the present case is anticipated by claim 5 of US 2026/0256580 A1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the valve, an axial direction, and a shape of an end contour of the valve after contraction must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the avoidance part” in claim 3 and “the installation groove” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof:
The avoidance part is interpreted to be a spindle (34) on the inner catheter (3).
The installation groove is interpreted to be the grooves (35) on the inner catheter (3) which the eyelets of the prosthetic valve fit onto.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites “a shape of an end contour of the valve after contraction”. The specification does not provide any detail or drawing showing what particular shape(s) meets the limitation “a shape of an end contour of the valve after contraction”. The specification only repeats “a shape of an end contour of the valve after contraction” (Paragraph [0023 and 0074]). Therefore, the meets and bounds of this limitation is unclear, as the specification does not provide details regarding the claimed shape.
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 1-2, 4-5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Desrosiers et al. (US PG Pub No. A1), as evidenced by US 9,155,619.
Regarding claim 1, Desrosiers discloses a valve delivery system (Figs. 1-16, prosthetic implant delivery assembly 100), comprising: a valve (Figs. 1-16, prosthetic heart valve 102) provided with a fixing part (Paragraph [0050], Fig. 3, apices 118); and a delivery device (Figs. 1-16, delivery apparatus 104), wherein the delivery device (104) comprises:
a bolt wire assembly (Fig. 4; locking catheter 128) comprising a bolt wire (Fig. 4, arms 172, tips 177) extending along an axial direction of the delivery device (Paragraph [0053], 104);
and a withdrawing assembly (Figs. 5A-6), comprising a fixing claw (150) (Figs. 5A-6, arms 150), wherein the fixing claw is elastic (Paragraph [0080], 171 of 150 is part of 126 which can be made with nitinol, an elastic material), the fixing claw is provided with a limiting hole (Figs. 5A-6, windows 170), and the fixing part (118) of the valve is able to pass through the limiting hole (170) (Figs. 5A-5C);
wherein when the fixing part (118) passes through (Figs. 5A-5C) the limiting hole (170) and the bolt wire (172, tips 177) passes through a fixing hole (Figs. 3 and 5A-5C, openings 120) of the fixing part (118), the valve (102) is able to be partially (Figs. 14-16) expanded under an action of its own elastic force (position of Figure 1; Paragraph [0051]), the fixing part (118) is unable to be separated (Paragraph [0059], Fig. 5B, locking arm 172) from the limiting hole (170), and the valve (102) is in a connected state (Fig 1.; the valve can be partially expanded but remains connected to the claw 150); or when the bolt wire (172, 177) is separated from the fixing hole (120), the fixing part (118) is able to be separated from the limiting hole (170), and the valve (102) is in an unhooked state (Paragraph [0060], Fig. 5C).
Regarding claim 2, Desrosiers discloses wherein the withdrawing assembly (Figs. 5A-6, release catheter 126) is provided with a through hole (see annotated Fig. 5A below), and the bolt wire (Fig. 4, arms 172, tips 177) is able to pass through the through hole (see annotated Fig. 5A below) and cooperate with the fixing hole (Figs. 3 and 5A-5C, openings 120).
PNG
media_image1.png
250
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Desrosiers discloses wherein an end (see annotated Fig. 5A above) of the fixing claw (Figs. 5A-6, distal end 171 of arms 150) is connected to an end (see annotated Fig. 5A above) of the withdrawing assembly (Figs. 5A-6, release catheter 126) close to the bolt wire assembly (Fig. 1, 104 comprises locking catheter 128), and another end of the fixing claw (Figs. 5A-6, distal end 171 of arms 150) is provided with the limiting hole (Figs. 5A-6, windows 170); and a size of the another end (171) of the fixing claw (Figs. 5A-6, distal end 171 of arms 150) provided with the limiting hole (170) is larger than a size of the end (see annotated Fig. 5A above) of the fixing claw (171 of 150) connected to the end (see annotated Fig. 5A above) of the withdrawing assembly (126) close to the bolt wire assembly (104 comprises locking catheter 128).
Regarding claim 5, Desrosiers discloses wherein the withdrawing assembly (Figs. 5A-6, release catheter 126) comprises a plurality of fixing claws (Figs. 5A-6, distal end 171 of arms 150), the bolt wire assembly (Fig. 4, 104 comprises locking catheter 128) is correspondingly provided with a plurality of bolt wires (Figs. 4 and 5A, arms 172, tips 177), and the plurality of fixing claws (Figs. 5A-6, distal end 171 of arms 150) are arranged along a circumferential direction (Figs. 5A-6) of the withdrawing assembly (126).
Regarding claim 7, Desrosiers discloses further comprising a wire removal device (proximal end of the locking catheter 128 positioned within the handle 122), and a wire removal connecting tube (shaft portion 175 of locking catheter 128 illustrated in Fig. 4), wherein an end of the wire removal connecting tube (175) is connected to the bolt wire assembly (arms 172); see Fig. 4 [0058]), and another end of the wire removal connecting tube (175) (proximal end not shown in Figure 4) is connected to the wire removal device (proximal end of locking catheter 128 positioned within the handle 122), and wherein the wire removal device (proximal end of catheter 128), is able to move along the axial direction of the delivery device (104) (see [0090-0091] describing retraction of the wire removal device – locking catheter 128 – to release the valve).
Regarding claim 8, Desrosiers discloses an outer tube (catheter 144) and the function of retracting the outer sheath to expose the valve from the position of Figure 14 to the position of Figure 15 [0091-0092]. Desrosiers fails to disclose details of the retraction mechanism on the handle (122) but does incorporate by reference US 9,155,619 at [0092] which discloses a wheel assembly in the control handle for controlling retraction of a sheath (106) to uncover a valve (see column 16, lines 3-16). The driven nut (222) on the proximal end of the torque shaft that slides within the drive cylinder (224) meets the requirement of the wheel assembly, as this functions to move the outer sheath (106) proximally to expose the valve.
Regarding claim 9, Desrosiers discloses the wire removal device (proximal end of the locking catheter 128 positioned within the handle 122) and the delivery device (Figs. 1-16, delivery apparatus 104), but fails to disclose details of a locking device, wherein the locking device is able to lock the wire removal device and restrict the wire removal device from moving along the axial direction of the delivery device (104), but does incorporate by reference US 9,155,619 at [0092], which discloses a locking device in the control handle for controlling axial separation and release of the catheter assembly from the handle (Col. 15, lines 42-47). The button (218) and holding mechanism (214) in the control handle meets the requirement of the locking device, as this functions to keep the catheter assembly in a locking engagement.
Regarding claim 10, Desrosiers discloses further comprising an introduction device (Fig. 4, inner catheter 130 [0091), wherein the introduction device (130) is provided with a protruding part (nosecone 186), the protruding part (186) is arranged around a side wall of the introduction device (130), and a shape the protruding part is the same as a shape of an end contour of the valve after contraction (the concave proximal end of the nosecone accommodates the distal end of the valve).
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.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desrosiers et al. (US PG Pub No. 2017/0231765 A1) in view of Keogh et al. (US PG Pub No. 2020/0281719 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Desrosiers discloses the withdrawing assembly (Figs. 5A-6, release catheter 126), the fixing claw (Figs. 5A-6, distal end 171 of arms 150) and the through hole (see annotated Fig. 5A above). Desrosiers fails to disclose wherein the withdrawing assembly is provided with an avoidance part, and the avoidance part is correspondingly arranged with the fixing claw and is in communication with the through hole.
Keogh also discloses a valve delivery system (Figs. 5-6, delivery system 200) with a withdrawing assembly (Figs. 5-6, delivery catheter 220) and a fixing claw (Figs. 5-6, capsule segment 248). Keogh teaches wherein the withdrawing assembly (220) is provided with an avoidance part (as interpreted under 112(f) above, Figs. 5-6, spindle shaft 228), and the avoidance part (228) is correspondingly arranged (see Fig. 1A) with the fixing claw (248) and is in communication (Paragraph [0052]) with the through hole (Figs. 5-6, lumen 227). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Desrosiers’ valve delivery system wherein the withdrawing assembly is provided with an avoidance part, and the avoidance part is correspondingly arranged with the fixing claw and is in communication with the through hole, as taught by Keogh, in order to retain the prosthetic valve (Paragraphs [0049 and 0052]).
Regarding claim 6, Desrosiers as modified by Keogh further discloses wherein the withdrawing assembly (220) is provided with an installation groove (as interpreted under 112(f) above, Figs. 5-6, Paragraph [0056], “spindle shaft 228 may include coupling features such as grooves”, therefore the spindle pins 256, 258 couple to valve eyelets 119 and 120 and can be grooves), the fixing claw (248) is arranged in the installation groove (Paragraph [0056], 256, 258), the installation groove (Paragraph [0056], 256, 258) is in communication (Paragraph [0056]) with the avoidance part (228), and the installation groove (Paragraph [0056], 256, 258) is correspondingly arranged (Figs. 5-6) with the through hole (237).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Le et al. (US PG Pub No. 2009/0281619 A1) also discloses a valve delivery device (Fig. 1, delivery apparatus 10), a withdrawing assembly (Fig. 1, nose piece 32), a valve (Fig. 1, valve 12), a wheel assembly (Fig. 1, 70), a bolt wire assembly (Fig. 22A, flex adapter 96), and a bolt wire (Fig. 22A, fingers 98).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARI L COCHRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-5:00.
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, Melanie Tyson can be reached at 5712729062. 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.
/K.L.C./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/SARAH W ALEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights