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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-11, and 13-20 are pending and examined below
Response to Arguments
The remarks of 11/07/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record doesn't explicitly teach or disclose all of the limitations of independent claims 1,16, and 19. In particular, applicant’s arguments are directed towards the following claim limitation:
“…and the mesh comprises at least two multifilament weft strands and a multifilament warp strand, the at least two multifilament weft strands forming a figure eight pattern around the multifilament warp strand and each of the plurality of projections being parallel to the multifilament”
Applicant’s arguments are moot in light of the new 103 rejection below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6-11, 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0021862 (Kalpakci) in view of US 2014/0094831 (Thomas) in view of US 2016/0281276 (Hozumi) in view of US 2021/0277549 (Uchino)
Regarding claim 1, Kalpakci discloses a bone implant (Fig. 1, 10) for enclosing bone material (¶0046, “enclosing a bone material”), the bone implant comprising:
a mesh (Fig. 1, 14) having an inner surface (Fig. 1, inner surface 16) and an outer surface (Fig. 1, outer surface 18) opposing the inner surface (Fig. 1, wherein 18 opposes 16), the inner surface configured to receive a bone material when the inner surface of the mesh is in an open configuration (¶0048), the mesh comprising woven or knit material (¶0043, wherein “fabricated by knitting or weaving” corresponds to a woven or knit material); and
a plurality of projections (Fig. 1, 24) disposed on or in at least a portion of the inner surface of the mesh, the outer surface of the mesh or both the inner surface and outer surface of the mesh (¶0056, wherein hooks 24 are disposed on at least an portion of the inner surface of the mesh), the plurality of projections extending from at least the portion of the inner surface, the outer surface of the mesh or both the inner surface and outer surface of the mesh (¶0056, wherein hooks 24 are disposed on at least on inner surface of the mesh) and configured to engage a section of the inner surface of the mesh or a section of the outer surface of the mesh or both sections of the inner and outer surfaces of the mesh in a closed configuration so as to enclose the bone material (¶0079), and the mesh comprises at least two multifilament weft strands and a multifilament warp strand (see Fig. 1, wherein mesh comprises at least a vertical warps and at least two horizonal wefts, see also ¶0049, wherein the mesh can be made of a multifilament yarn) and each of the plurality of projections being parallel to the multifilament warp strand (¶0057, wherein being interwoven into the mesh corresponds to being parallel to the multifilament warp strand)
Kalpakci discloses a plurality of projections which comprise hooks (hook 24, Fig. 1) which can be a similar material to the mesh (see ¶0057, wherein hooks can be the same material as the mesh; see also ¶0043 wherein mesh can be either monofilament or multi-filament) However, Kalpakci doesn’t explicitly teach hooks or grips that comprise a monofilament material.
Thomas, an implantable medical device, discloses a plurality of projections (¶0036, “grip members” which comprise hooks or grips (¶0037, wherein the grip-members may be configured as “hooks”) that comprise monofilament material (¶0036, wherein the grip-members may be a monofilament material)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the hooks of Kalpakci with a monofilament material, as taught by Thomas, in order to maintain a more rigid connection and suitable attachment strength. It is well known in the art that monofilament yarns are more rigid than multifilament yarns of the same diameter.
Kalpakci discloses a mesh (Fig. 1, 14) with multifilament weft strands and multifilament warp strands (see Fig. 1, wherein mesh comprises at least a vertical warp and at least two horizonal wefts, see also ¶0049, wherein the mesh can be made of a multifilament yarn) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose the at least two weft strands forming a figure eight pattern around the warp strand. Thomas doesn't explicitly teach or disclose at least two weft strands forming a figure eight pattern around the warp strand
Hozumi discloses a mesh (Fig. 2) comprising at least two weft strands (Fig. 2, wefts C and D) forming a figure eight pattern around the warp strand (see annotated Fig. 2 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
418
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multifilament warps and multifilament wefts of Kalpakci in view of Thomas with a figure eight pattern, as taught by Hozumi, in order to add strength and stability to the mesh.
Kalpakci discloses a mesh (Fig. 3, 14) comprising a plurality of projections (Fig. 3, 24) being parallel (Fig. 3, wherein projections 14 are parallel to the vertical warp strands) to the multifilament warp strand (¶0049, wherein the warps can be multifilament). Kalpakci doesn't explicitly teach or disclose at least two multifilament weft strands and a multifilament warp strand, the at least two multifilament weft strands forming a figure eight pattern around the multifilament warp strand. Thomas doesn't explicitly teach or disclose at least two multifilament weft strands and a multifilament warp strand, the at least two multifilament weft strands forming a figure eight pattern around the multifilament warp strand. Hozumi discloses at least two wefts (Annotated Fig. 2 above, wefts C and D) forming a figure eight pattern around a multifilament warp (Annotated Fig. 2 above, wherein wefts C and D form a figure eight around at least warp 3) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose that the warps and wefts and multifilament strands.
Uchino discloses a mesh (Fig. 8) that comprises at least two multifilament weft strands (Annotated Fig. 8 below, see also ¶0020 wherein “twisted yarn” corresponds to multifilament) and a multifilament warp strand (Annotated Fig. 8 below, see also ¶0020 wherein “twisted yarn” corresponds to multifilament), the at least two multifilament weft strands forming a figure eight pattern around the multifilament warp strand (Annotated Fig. 8 below, wherein the wefts form a figure eight pattern around the warp)
PNG
media_image2.png
458
1100
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mesh and projections of Kalpakci in view of Thomas in view of Hozumi with at least two multifilament wefts forming a figure eight pattern around the multifilament warp strand, as taught by Uchino, in order to improve the strength of the mesh (Uchino, ¶0016)
Regarding claim 3, Kalpakci discloses a plurality of projections which comprise hooks (hook 24, Fig. 1) which can be a similar material to the mesh (see ¶0057, wherein hooks can be the same material as the mesh; see also ¶0043 wherein mesh can be either monofilament or multi-filament) However, Kalpakci doesn’t explicitly teach hooks or grips that comprise a monofilament material.
Thomas, discloses a plurality of projections (¶0036, “grip members” which comprise hooks or grips (¶0037, wherein the grip-members may be configured as “hooks”) that comprise monofilament material (¶0036, wherein the grip-members may be a monofilament material) that is more rigid than the mesh (¶0036 wherein a monofilament material in inherently more rigid than a multifilament arrangement of the same material and diameter).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the hooks of Kalpakci with a monofilament material, as taught by Thomas, in order to maintain a more rigid connection and suitable attachment strength. It is well known in the art that monofilament yarns are more rigid than multifilament yarns of the same diameter.
Regarding claim 4, Kalpakci discloses wherein the plurality of projections are woven or knit within the inner surface, outer surface or both the inner surface and outer surface of the mesh (“The hooks can be made from the same material as the mesh or a different material than the mesh and can be interwoven in the weave of the mesh”, paragraph 0057), and the projections protrude from the inner, outer or both surfaces of the woven or knit material and are configured to engage other projections or multifilament strands of the mesh (see paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 6, Kalpakci discloses wherein the mesh (14, Fig. 1) comprises a plurality of biodegradable fibers (“Any fully absorbable material can be used to fabricate the mesh”, paragraph 0042), and at least one of the plurality of projections (24, Fig. 1) is part of at least one of the plurality of biodegradable fibers (¶0057, wherein the hooks can be made from the same material as the mesh; see also ¶0042, wherein fully absorbable material can be used for the mesh and therefore can also be used for the fibers).
Regarding claim 7, Kalpakci discloses wherein the woven or knit sheet has (i) a first side and a second side and the plurality of projections are disposed on the first side, second side or both the first and second side of the woven or knit sheet (“The hooks extend from at least the portion of the inner surface of the mesh, and are configured to engage a section of the inner surface of the mesh or a section of the outer surface of the mesh or both sections of the inner and outer surfaces of the mesh when the mesh is in a closed configuration so as to enclose the bone material”, paragraph 0056); (ii) the woven or knit sheet has a thickness from about 0.1 mm to about 2 mm (Paragraph 0093); or (iii) pores having a diameter from about 0.1 mm to about 3 mm (Paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 8, Kalpakci discloses wherein (i) the mesh is foldable in the closed configuration to enclose the bone material (paragraph 0071); (ii) the mesh is configured to roll the section of the inner surface over the bone material to enclose the bone material and the mesh is self-adherent (“The mesh can alternatively be rolled by the user to seal the bone implant, as shown in FIG. 7B”, paragraph 0153); (iii) the bone material is partially enclosed by the mesh (“The mesh can alternatively be rolled by the user to seal the bone implant, as shown in FIG. 7B”, paragraph 0153); (iv) the plurality of projections are disposed on or in the entire inner surface, outer surface, or both the inner and outer surface of the mesh (“The hooks extend from at least the portion of the inner surface of the mesh, and are configured to engage a section of the inner surface of the mesh or a section of the outer surface of the mesh or both sections of the inner and outer surfaces of the mesh”, paragraph 0056); or (v) the ratio of the woven mesh to the plurality of projections is from about 1:1 2:1, 3:1, 4:1, 5:1, 6:1, 7:1, 8:1, 9:1 to about 10:1 (see paragraphs 0050 for fibers per inch and 0068 for hooks per inch).
Regarding claim 9, Kalpakci discloses wherein (i) the mesh is biodegradable and is made from at least one of poly(lactic acid) (PLA), poly(glycolic acid) (PGA), poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA), polydioxanone (PDO), allogeneic collagen, xenogenic collagen, ceramic or a combination thereof (“The mesh can be absorbable and be made from a material, including, but not limited to at least one of polylactic acid) (PLA), poly(glycolic acid) (PGA), polylactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA), polydioxanone (PDO), allogeneic collagen, xenogenic collagen, ceramic or a combination thereof”, paragraph 0051);
Regarding claim 10, Kalpakci discloses wherein (i) the bone material comprises fully demineralized bone fibers and surface demineralized bone chips (Paragraph 0076); (ii) the bone material comprises calcium phosphate (claim 12); or (iii) the bone material comprises autograft bone (paragraph 0126).
Regarding claim 11, the claimed phrase “wherein the woven or knit material is warp knitted, crotched or a combination thereof” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, that the product “woven or knit material”” is made by process “warp knitting, crocheting or a combination thereof”. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
In the instant case – the product disclosed in Kalpakci (Fig. 1, mesh 14, see also ¶0049, wherein 14 can be knitted or woven) appears to be substantially the same or similar to the “woven or knit material” of claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, Kalpakci discloses wherein each one of the plurality of projections has a hook portion (26) and a stalk portion (28), the stalk portion embedded into the sheet form and the hook portion protruding above the sheet form (see figure 1, “…The distal end is fixed on or in at least a portion of the inner surface of the mesh and the proximal end engages one or a plurality of projections that are disposed on or in at least a portion of an opposing inner surface of the mesh, or a section of the mesh that comprises the weave or a plurality of recesses disposed in or on).
Regarding claim 14, Kalpakci discloses wherein the stalk portion is from about 0.1 mm to about 10 mm (¶0059, wherein 1mm is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 15, the claimed phrase “wherein the plurality of projections are prepared by lasers, melting, cutting or a combination thereof” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, that the product “plurality of projections” is made by process “lasers, melting, cutting or a combination thereof”. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
In the instant case – the product disclosed in Kalpakci (Fig. 1, projections 24, see also ¶0057-0058) appears to be substantially the same or similar to the “plurality of projections” of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Kalpakci discloses a kit (44, Fig. 6A) for filling bone material (12, Fig. 6A) in a bone implant (10, Fig. 6A), the kit comprising:
a bone implant (10) comprising a mesh (14) having an inner surface (16) and an outer surface (18) opposing the inner surface (Figure 1, paragraph 0048), the inner surface configured to receive a bone material when the inner surface of the mesh is in an open configuration (Paragraph 0048), the mesh comprising woven or knit material (“The mesh can be made from yarn that is monofilament or multi filament, and the mesh can be fabricated using knitting, weaving…”, paragraph 0043);
a plurality of projections (24) disposed on or in at least a portion of the inner surface of the mesh, the outer surface of the mesh or both the inner surface and outer surface of the mesh (figure 1, paragraph 0056), the plurality of projections (24) extending from at least the portion of the inner surface, the outer surface of the mesh or both the inner surface and outer surface of the mesh and configured to engage a section of the inner surface of the mesh or a section of the outer surface of the mesh or both sections of the inner and outer surfaces of the mesh in a closed configuration so as to enclose the bone material (“configured to engage a section of the inner surface of the mesh or a section of the outer surface of the mesh or both sections of the inner and outer surfaces of the mesh when the mesh is in a closed configuration so as to enclose the bone material”, paragraph 0056); and the mesh comprises at least two multifilament weft strands and a multifilament warp strand (see Fig. 1, wherein mesh comprises at least a vertical warps and at least two horizonal wefts, see also ¶0049, wherein the mesh can be made of a multifilament yarn) and each of the plurality of projections being parallel to the multifilament warp strand (¶0057, wherein being interwoven into the mesh corresponds to being parallel to the multifilament warp strand);
a tray (46, figure 6c) having a proximal end (48), a distal end (50), and a longitudinal recess (52) disposed therebetween (figure 6c), the longitudinal recess configured to receive the mesh in the open configuration to allow filling of the bone material into the bone implant (paragraph 0083).
Kalpakci discloses a plurality of projections which comprise hooks (hook 24, Fig. 1) which can be a similar material to the mesh (see ¶0057, wherein hooks can be the same material as the mesh; see also ¶0043 wherein mesh can be either monofilament or multi-filament) However, Kalpakci doesn’t explicitly teach hooks or grips that comprise a monofilament material.
Thomas, an implantable medical device, discloses a plurality of projections (¶0036, “grip members” which comprise hooks or grips (¶0037, wherein the grip-members may be configured as “hooks”) that comprise monofilament material (¶0036, wherein the grip-members may be a monofilament material)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the hooks of Kalpakci with a monofilament material, as taught by Thomas, in order to maintain a more rigid connection and suitable attachment strength. It is well known in the art that monofilament yarns are more rigid than multifilament yarns of the same diameter.
Kalpakci discloses a mesh (Fig. 1, 14) with multifilament weft strands and multifilament warp strands (see Fig. 1, wherein mesh comprises at least a vertical warps and at least two horizonal wefts, see also ¶0049, wherein the mesh can be made of a multifilament yarn) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose the at least two weft strands forming a figure eight pattern around the warp strand. Thomas doesn't explicitly teach or disclose at least two weft strands forming a figure eight pattern around the warp strand
Hozumi discloses a mesh (Fig. 2) comprising at least two weft strands (Fig. 2, wefts C and D) forming a figure eight pattern around the warp strand (see annotated Fig. 2 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
418
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multifilament warps and multifilament wefts of Kalpakci in view of Thomas with a figure eight pattern, as taught by Hozumi, in order to add strength and stability to the mesh.
Kalpakci discloses a mesh (Fig. 3, 14) comprising a plurality of projections (Fig. 3, 24) being parallel (Fig. 3, wherein projections 14 are parallel to the vertical warp strands) to the multifilament warp strand (¶0049, wherein the warps can be multifilament). Kalpakci doesn't explicitly teach or disclose at least two multifilament weft strands and a multifilament warp strand, the at least two multifilament weft strands forming a figure eight pattern around the multifilament warp strand. Thomas doesn't explicitly teach or disclose at least two multifilament weft strands and a multifilament warp strand, the at least two multifilament weft strands forming a figure eight pattern around the multifilament warp strand. Hozumi discloses at least two wefts (Annotated Fig. 2 above, wefts C and D) forming a figure eight pattern around a multifilament warp (Annotated Fig. 2 above, wherein wefts C and D form a figure eight around at least warp 3) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose that the warps and wefts and multifilament strands.
Uchino discloses a mesh (Fig. 8) that comprises at least two multifilament weft strands (Annotated Fig. 8 below, see also ¶0020 wherein “twisted yarn” corresponds to multifilament) and a multifilament warp strand (Annotated Fig. 8 below, see also ¶0020 wherein “twisted yarn” corresponds to multifilament), the at least two multifilament weft strands forming a figure eight pattern around the multifilament warp strand (Annotated Fig. 8 below, wherein the wefts form a figure eight pattern around the warp)
PNG
media_image2.png
458
1100
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mesh and projections of Kalpakci in view of Thomas in view of Hozumi with at least two multifilament wefts forming a figure eight pattern around the multifilament warp strand, as taught by Uchino, in order to improve the strength of the mesh (Uchino, ¶0016)
Regarding claim 17, Kalpakci discloses a woven or knit mesh in sheet form (see Fig. 1, wherein mesh 24 is in sheet form). Kalpakci further discloses a plurality of projections which comprise hooks (hook 24, Fig. 1) which can be a similar material to the mesh (see ¶0057, wherein hooks can be the same material as the mesh; see also ¶0043 wherein mesh can be either monofilament or multi-filament) However, Kalpakci doesn’t explicitly teach hooks or grips that comprise a monofilament material.
Thomas, an implantable medical device, discloses a plurality of projections (¶0036, “grip members” which comprise hooks or grips (¶0037, wherein the grip-members may be configured as “hooks”) that comprise monofilament material (¶0036, wherein the grip-members may be a monofilament material) that is more rigid than the mesh (¶0036, a monofilament arrangement of a material is more rigid than a multifilament arrangement of the same material and diameter).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the hooks of Kalpakci with a monofilament material, as taught by Thomas, in order to maintain a more rigid connection and suitable attachment strength.
Regarding claim 18, Kalpakci discloses wherein (i) the tray material is made of metal, thermoform, a polymer or a combination thereof (paragraph 0080); (ii) the recess of the tray forms a slot for receiving the mesh (paragraph 0083); (iii) the recess of the tray is a channel, a trough, a slot, a groove or grooves, an indent or indents or a combination thereof (paragraph 0084); (iv) the recess of the tray is centrally located in the tray (figure 6c); or (v) the bone material comprises fully demineralized bone fibers and surface demineralized bone chips, calcium phosphate or autograft bone (paragraph 0076, paragraph 0116, claim 12, paragraph 0126).
Regarding claim 19, Kalpakci discloses a method of implanting a bone implant at a surgical site, the method comprising:
providing a bone implant (10) comprising a mesh (14) having an inner surface (16) and an outer surface (18) opposing the inner surface (see figure 1), the inner surface configured to receive a bone material (12) when the inner surface of the mesh is in an open configuration (paragraph 0048), the mesh comprising woven or knit material (“The mesh can be made of yarn that is monofilament or multifilament, and the yarn can be knitted, woven, non-woven shape memory, felted, point-bonded, additive manufactured, such as 3-D printed or a combination thereof”, paragraph 0049); and a plurality of projections (24) disposed on or in at least a portion of the inner surface of the mesh (paragraph 0056), the outer surface of the mesh (paragraph 0056) or both the inner surface and outer surface of the mesh (paragraph 0056), the plurality of projections extending from at least the portion of the inner surface, the outer surface of the mesh or both the inner surface and outer surface of the mesh and configured to engage a section of the inner surface of the mesh or a section of the outer surface of the mesh or both sections of the inner and outer surfaces of the mesh in a closed configuration so as to enclose the bone material (paragraph 0056), and the mesh comprises at least two multifilament weft strands and a multifilament warp strand (see Fig. 1, wherein mesh comprises at least a vertical warps and at least two horizonal wefts, see also ¶0049, wherein the mesh can be made of a multifilament yarn) and each of the plurality of projections being parallel to the multifilament warp strand (¶0057, wherein being interwoven into the mesh corresponds to being parallel to the multifilament warp strand)
disposing the bone material in the inner surface of the mesh by orientating the mesh in the open configuration (“The inner surface is configured to receive a bone material when the inner surface of the mesh is in an open configuration”, paragraph 0008);
enclosing the bone material in the mesh by orientating the mesh in the closed configuration (paragraph 0008); and
placing the bone implant at the surgical site thereby implanting the bone implant at the surgical site (paragraph 0008).
multifilament mesh).
Kalpakci discloses a plurality of projections which comprise hooks (hook 24, Fig. 1) which can be a similar material to the mesh (see ¶0057, wherein hooks can be the same material as the mesh; see also ¶0043 wherein mesh can be either monofilament or multi-filament) However, Kalpakci doesn’t explicitly teach hooks or grips that comprise a monofilament material.
Thomas, an implantable medical device, discloses a plurality of projections (¶0036, “grip members” which comprise hooks or grips (¶0037, wherein the grip-members may be configured as “hooks”) that comprise monofilament material (¶0036, wherein the grip-members may be a monofilament material)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the hooks of Kalpakci with a monofilament material, as taught by Thomas, in order to maintain a more rigid connection and suitable attachment strength. It is well known in the art that monofilament yarns are more rigid than multifilament yarns of the same diameter.
Kalpakci discloses a mesh (Fig. 1, 14) with multifilament weft strands and multifilament warp strands (see Fig. 1, wherein mesh comprises at least a vertical warp and at least two horizonal wefts, see also ¶0049, wherein the mesh can be made of a multifilament yarn) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose the at least two weft strands forming a figure eight pattern around the warp strand. Thomas doesn't explicitly teach or disclose at least two weft strands forming a figure eight pattern around the warp strand
Hozumi discloses a mesh (Fig. 2) comprising at least two weft strands (Fig. 2, wefts C and D) forming a figure eight pattern around the warp strand (see annotated Fig. 2 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
418
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multifilament warps and multifilament wefts of Kalpakci in view of Thomas with a figure eight pattern, as taught by Hozumi, in order to add strength and stability to the mesh.
Kalpakci discloses a mesh (Fig. 3, 14) comprising a plurality of projections (Fig. 3, 24) being parallel (Fig. 3, wherein projections 14 are parallel to the vertical warp strands) to the multifilament warp strand (¶0049, wherein the warps can be multifilament). Kalpakci doesn't explicitly teach or disclose at least two multifilament weft strands and a multifilament warp strand, the at least two multifilament weft strands forming a figure eight pattern around the multifilament warp strand. Thomas doesn't explicitly teach or disclose at least two multifilament weft strands and a multifilament warp strand, the at least two multifilament weft strands forming a figure eight pattern around the multifilament warp strand. Hozumi discloses at least two wefts (Annotated Fig. 2 above, wefts C and D) forming a figure eight pattern around a multifilament warp (Annotated Fig. 2 above, wherein wefts C and D form a figure eight around at least warp 3) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose that the warps and wefts and multifilament strands.
Uchino discloses a mesh (Fig. 8) that comprises at least two multifilament weft strands (Annotated Fig. 8 below, see also ¶0020 wherein “twisted yarn” corresponds to multifilament) and a multifilament warp strand (Annotated Fig. 8 below, see also ¶0020 wherein “twisted yarn” corresponds to multifilament), the at least two multifilament weft strands forming a figure eight pattern around the multifilament warp strand (Annotated Fig. 8 below, wherein the wefts form a figure eight pattern around the warp)
PNG
media_image2.png
458
1100
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mesh and projections of Kalpakci in view of Thomas in view of Hozumi with at least two multifilament wefts forming a figure eight pattern around the multifilament warp strand, as taught by Uchino, in order to improve the strength of the mesh (Uchino, ¶0016)
Regarding claim 20, Kalpakci discloses (ii) the bone material is fully demineralized bone fibers and surface demineralized bone chips (paragraph 0076), or autograft bone (“Other suitable materials that may be positioned in the mesh include, for example, protein…autograft bone”, paragraph 0112), or calcium phosphate (claim 12).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXIMILIAN TOBIAS SPENCER whose telephone number is (571)272-8382. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Jerrah Edwards can be reached on 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.
/MAXIMILIAN TOBIAS SPENCER/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/JERRAH EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights