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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/01/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is a response to applicant’s arguments and amendment filed 10/01/2025. Claims 1, 12 and 43 are amended. Claims 2-3, 6-9, 11, 18, 20, 29-31, 33-34, 44-45 and 50 are cancelled. Claims 1, 4-5, 10, 12-17, 19, 21-28, 32, 35-43, 46-49 and 51-56 are currently pending, with claims 51-56 withdrawn from consideration.
The objection of claims 1 and 44 has been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1, 4-7, 10, 21-28, 32, 35-42, 44 and 46-49 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 12-17, 19 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained; see below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 10/01/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4-7, 10, 12-16, 21-25, 27-28, 32 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunsvold in view of Hendricksen; claims 1, 10, 12, 17, 19, 26 and 40-44 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallin in view of Hendricksen; claims 1 and 36-39 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizk in view of Hendricksen; claims 46-48 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunsvold in view of Hendricksen and Jastifer; and claim 49 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunsvold in view of Hendricksen, Jastifer and Sengun, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection has been modified, necessitated by applicant’s amendment to the claims.
Applicant argues Brunsvold, Hendricksen, Fallin, and Rizk do not teach the limitations of claim 1 (Remarks, pgs. 9-19). In response to applicant’s argument, it is respectfully submitted a separate embodiment of Hendricksen teaches the anchor comprising two intersecting crossbars, such that the claimed limitations are met, as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-17, 19 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “the device of any one of claims 1, 4-6 and 10” in the preamble. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are, since claim 6 is a cancelled claim and it is unclear what subject matter the claim is further limiting (see below). Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted to be dependent on any one of claims 1, 4-5 and 10.
Regarding claim 43, the claim recites “two intersecting crossbars” in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether the phrase is referring to the two intersecting crossbars previously introduced, or introducing new, separate crossbars. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase is interpreted to refer to the two intersecting crossbars previously introduced.
Claims 13-17 and 19 are indefinite due to their dependencies on indefinite base claim 12.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “the device of any one of claims 1, 4-6, and 10” in the preamble. Claim 6 is a cancelled claim, such that it is unclear what limitations the claim further limits and therefore is in improper dependent form. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted to be dependent on any one of claims 1, 4-5 and 10.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 10, 12-16, 21-25, 27-28, 32 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunsvold (US 2009/0149883 A1) in view of Hendricksen (US 2010/0292733 A1) (all references previously of record).
Regarding claim 1, Brunsvold discloses (abstract; paras. [0037]-[0095]; figs. 1-24) a device (anchor assembly 2320, depicted in at least figs. 23-24 and similar to anchor 2000 depicted in fig. 20) comprising:
an anchor (stopper portion 2306, para. [0092]) configured to at least partially reside within a rigid structure (driven into bone, para. [0092]), the anchor being further configured to hold one or more sutures (includes suture loop 2322, para. [0093]; fig. 23); and
the anchor comprising one or more flanges (barbed hook portion 1210 of detent device, para. [0070]) on an interior surface of the anchor (interior surface includes inward portion of 1210, fig. 2) configured to engage corresponding flanges (external surface region 1218, depicted in figs. 12 and 23) of a cap (fixing portion 2310) for securing the cap to the anchor (para. [0070]).
Note Brunsvold does disclose a crossbar (see annotated fig. 20 in the non-final rejection mailed 07/26/2024).
However, Brunsvold fails to disclose wherein the anchor comprises two intersecting crossbars laterally disposed entirely within an interior space of the anchor, wherein the two intersecting crossbars are configured to receive and hold at least a portion of the one or more sutures.
Hendricksen teaches (para. [0137]; fig. 39), in the same field of endeavor, a device (fig. 39) comprising an anchor (2702) comprising two intersecting crossbars (annotated fig. 39) laterally disposed entirely within an interior space of the anchor (disposed transversely and within housing), wherein the two intersecting crossbars are configured to receive and hold at least a portion of one or more sutures (fig. 39), in place of alternative cinching mechanisms (see at least figs. 25a, 27d, 29a and 30a).
The substitution of one known element (two intersecting crossbars laterally disposed) for another (a vertical crossbar, fig. 20 of Brunsvold, figs. 25a, 27d, 29a and 30a of Hendricksen) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since the substitution of the two intersecting crossbars as taught by Hendricksen, would have yielded predictable results, specifically, cinching the suture. Note the combination would further provide the benefit of the looped suture being secured without having to rely on a knotted second suture, which still allows cinching of the suture to an appropriate length as needed, and adjustment of each extremity of the looped suture (para. [0137] of Hendricksen).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 39 of Hendricksen
Regarding claim 4, Brunsvold (as modified) teaches the device of claim 1. Brunsvold (as modified) further teaches wherein the anchor comprises one or more sections (annotated fig. 39 of Hendricksen) configured to receive and hold at least a portion of the one or more sutures (fig. 39 of Hendricksen).
Regarding claim 5, Brunsvold (as modified) teaches the device of claim 4. Brunsvold (as modified) further teaches wherein the one or more sections comprise channels (fig. 39 of Hendricksen).
Regarding claim 10, Brunsvold (as modified) teaches the device of claim 1. Brunsvold further discloses wherein the anchor comprises a first threaded portion (threads 2312, figs. 20 and 23-24) configured to permit attachment of the anchor to the rigid structure (stopper portion inserted into bone, para. [0092]).
Regarding claim 12, Brunsvold (as modified) teaches the device of any one of claims 1, 4-6 and 10. Brunsvold further discloses further comprising an applicator (cannulated insertion tool 2300, para. [0092]; fig. 23), the applicator comprising a dispenser (first shaft 2304) and a first alignment mechanism (distal end of 2308), wherein the first alignment mechanism is configured to interact with a second alignment mechanism disposed upon the cap (engages with tool engagement region of fixing portion, para. [0058]; figs. 10 and 23-24).
Regarding claim 13, Brunsvold (as modified) teaches the device of claim 12. Brunsvold further discloses wherein the first and second alignment mechanisms are complementary to one another (figs. 10 and 23-24).
Regarding claim 14, Brunsvold (as modified) teaches the device of claim 12. Brunsvold further discloses wherein the second alignment mechanism is configured to receive the first alignment mechanism (figs. 10 and 23-24).
Regarding claim 15, Brunsvold (as modified) teaches the device of claim 12. Brunsvold further discloses wherein the first alignment mechanism is configured to receive the second alignment mechanism (second cannulated shaft 2308 considered to externally receive proximal end of fixing portion 2310, because engagement region of shaft 2308 supports weight of fixing portion 2310, figs. 10 and 23-24).
Regarding claim 16, Brunsvold (as modified) teaches the device of claim 12. Brunsvold further discloses wherein the second alignment mechanism is removable (tool engagement region of fixing portion considered to be removable relative to at least insertion tool, which is engaged and disengaged from fixing portion, paras. [0058]-[0059] and [0092]; figs. 10 and 23-24).
Regarding claim 21, Brunsvold (as modified) teaches the device of claim 1. Brunsvold further discloses wherein the rigid structure comprises a hard tissue of a subject (device inserted into bone, para. [0092]).
Regarding claim 22, Brunsvold (as modified) teaches the device of claim 1. Brunsvold further discloses wherein the rigid structure comprises a bone of a subject (para. [0092]).
Regarding claim 23, Brunsvold (as modified) teaches the device of claim 1. Brunsvold further discloses wherein the rigid structure comprises cortical bone, cancellous bone, flat bones, long bones, enamel, cartilage, or fibrocartilage (paras. [0038], [0060]-[0061] and [0094]).
Regarding claim 24, Brunsvold (as modified) teaches the device of claim 1. Brunsvold further discloses wherein the device is substantially cylindrical (stopper portion and fixing portion generally cylindrical, paras. [0037]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 25, Brunsvold (as modified) teaches the device of claim 1.
However, Brunsvold (as modified) fails to teach wherein the device is polygonal.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the shape of the device to be polygonal would result in a difference in function of the device of Brunsvold (as modified). Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the device of Brunsvold (as modified), would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification, and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed shape. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed shape solves any stated problem (para. [0018] of the instant spec.) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the shape of the device as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the device of Brunsvold (as modified) to be polygonal as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 27, Brunsvold (as modified) teaches the device of claim 1. Brunsvold further discloses wherein the anchor is configured to reversibly hold the one or more sutures (figs. 23-24, sutures extend proximally relative to anchor and therefore considered to be reversibly held).
Regarding claim 28, Brunsvold (as modified) teaches the device of claim 1. Brunsvold further discloses wherein the anchor is configured to be permanent or semi-permanent (withdrawal of anchor assembly prevented, considered to be at least semi-permanent, para. [0092]).
Regarding claim 32, Brunsvold (as modified) teaches the device of claim 1. Brunsvold further discloses wherein the device is configured to permit adjustment of a tension within each of the one or more sutures (suture extends through cannulated insertion tool, considered to permit adjustment of suture tension at proximal ends of suture, para. [0092]; figs. 23-24).
Regarding claim 35, Brunsvold (as modified) teaches the device of claim 1. Brunsvold further discloses wherein the device comprises a metal or a synthetic polymer (para. [0086]).
Claim(s) 1, 12, 17, 19, 26 and 40-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallin (US 2018/0008256 A1) in view of Hendricksen.
Regarding claim 1, Fallin discloses (abstract; paras. [0033]-[0067]; figs. 1-26) a device (figs. 5-7) comprising:
an anchor (400, para. [0033]; fig. 6) configured to at least partially reside within a rigid structure (anchor inserted into bone, paras. [0033]-[0034] and [0059]), the anchor being further configured to hold one or more sutures (paras. [0034]-[0035]); and
the anchor comprising one or more flanges (thread 432, para. [0037]) on an interior surface of the anchor (fig. 8) configured to engage corresponding flanges (thread 434) of a cap (set screw 416) for securing the cap to the anchor (para. [0037]; figs. 8-9).
Note Fallin does disclose at least one crossbar laterally disposed (annotated fig. 7).
However, Fallin fails to disclose wherein the anchor comprises two intersecting crossbars laterally disposed entirely within an interior space of the anchor, wherein the two intersecting crossbars are configured to receive and hold at least a portion of the one or more sutures.
Hendricksen teaches (para. [0137]; fig. 39), in the same field of endeavor, a device (fig. 39) comprising an anchor (2702) comprising two intersecting crossbars (annotated fig. 39) laterally disposed entirely within an interior space of the anchor (disposed transversely and within housing), wherein the two intersecting crossbars are configured to receive and hold at least a portion of one or more sutures (fig. 39), in place of alternative cinching mechanisms (see at least figs. 25a, 27d, 29a and 30a).
The substitution of one known element (two intersecting crossbars laterally disposed) for another (a single crossbar, fig. 7 of Fallin, figs. 25a, 27d, 29a and 30a of Hendricksen) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since the substitution of the two intersecting crossbars as taught by Hendricksen, would have yielded predictable results, specifically, cinching the suture. Note the combination would further provide the benefit of the looped suture being secured without having to rely on a knotted second suture, which still allows cinching of the suture to an appropriate length as needed, and adjustment of each extremity of the looped suture (para. [0137] of Hendricksen).
PNG
media_image2.png
863
515
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 7 of Fallin
Regarding claim 12, Fallin (as modified) teaches the device of any one of claims 1, 4-6 and 10. Fallin further discloses further comprising an applicator (driver 570, para. [0053]), the applicator comprising a dispenser (through hole 596, para. [0054]) and a first alignment mechanism (set screw driver, para. [0054]), wherein the first alignment mechanism is configured to interact with a second alignment mechanism (locking mechanism of set screw 416, para. [0054]) disposed upon the cap (para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 17, Fallin (as modified) teaches the device of claim 12. Fallin further discloses wherein the applicator further comprises one or more aligning bars (opposing tabs 588, para. [0053]; figs. 15-18) and the anchor further comprises one or more aligning notches (slots 462) configured to receive the one or more aligning bars (para. [0053]).
Regarding claim 19, Fallin (as modified) teaches the device of claim 12.
Fallin further discloses wherein the applicator further comprises one or more aligning bars (opposing tabs 588, para. [0053]; figs. 15-18) and the anchor further comprises one or more aligning notches (slots 462) configured to receive the one or more aligning bars (para. [0053]).
However, Fallin (as modified) fails to specifically teach wherein the anchor further comprises the one or more aligning bars and the applicator further comprises the one or more aligning notches configured to receive the one or more aligning bars.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Fallin (as modified) such that the anchor includes the opposing tabs, and the driver 570 includes opposing slots configured to couple to the opposing tabs, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 26, Fallin (as modified) teaches the device of claim 1. Fallin further discloses wherein the anchor is configured to be removable when at least partially residing within the rigid structure (considered to be capable of being counter-rotated due to threading, further note this limitation is functional).
Regarding claim 40, Fallin (as modified) teaches the device of claim 1. Fallin further discloses the device configured for use rotator cuff repair (para. [0066]).
Regarding claim 41, Fallin (as modified) teaches the device of claim 40. Fallin further discloses wherein the upper airway surgery comprises larynx repair, pharynx repair, or a combination thereof (note this is an alternative limitation and not required by the limitations of claim 40).
Regarding claim 42, Fallin (as modified) teaches the device of claim 1. Fallin further discloses a method (paras. [0057]-[0067]) of securing soft tissue to a rigid structure comprising:
drilling a channel into the rigid structure (anchor includes self-tapping flute, considered to drill into bone, paras. [0033], [0055] and [0059]);
inserting the anchor of the device of claim 1 into the rigid structure (anchor inserted into bone, para. [0059]);
suturing a soft tissue to the anchor with the one or more sutures (para. [0066]);
modifying the tension of the one or more sutures (suture is tensioned, paras. [0060] and [0066]); and
placing the cap on the anchor to secure the one or more sutures in place (set screw 416 threaded through anchor to lock strand/suture at desired tension, para. [0060]).
Regarding claim 43, Fallin (as modified) teaches the method of claim 42. Fallin (as modified) further teaches further comprising: looping each of the one or more sutures around two intersecting crossbars disposed within the interior space of the anchor (suture threaded through holes 444 and 438, combination considered to further teach suture looped around intersecting crossbars); passing the one or more sutures through the soft tissue (suture passed through tendon, para. [0066]); temporarily securing at least a portion of the one or more sutures within a section (suture secured within receiver 430 via threads 432, considered to be at least temporarily secured through progressive gripping and releasing of suture until desired tension is achieved, para. [0037]); tensioning the one or more sutures (suture is tensioned during securement, paras. [0037] and [0060]); and affixing the cap to the anchor (set screw locked within proximal end, paras. [0033] and [0066]).
Claim(s) 1 and 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizk (US 2015/0018878 A1) in view of Hendricksen.
Regarding claim 1, Rizk discloses (abstract; paras. [0018]-[0108]; figs. 1a-2b) a device (fig. 1a) comprising:
an anchor (20) configured to at least partially reside within a rigid structure (inserted into bone, para. [0103]), the anchor being further configured to hold one or more sutures (40); and
the anchor comprising one or more flanges (interior threads) on an interior surface of the anchor (fig. 1a) configured to engage corresponding flanges (exterior threads) of a cap (10, considered to be a cap due to covering a distal portion of 20, fig. 1a) for securing the cap to the anchor (fig. 1a).
Note Rizk does disclose at least one crossbar (annotated fig. 1a).
However, Rizk fails to disclose wherein the anchor comprises two intersecting crossbars laterally disposed entirely within an interior space of the anchor, wherein the two intersecting crossbars are configured to receive and hold at least a portion of the one or more sutures.
Hendricksen teaches (para. [0137]; fig. 39), in the same field of endeavor, a device (fig. 39) comprising an anchor (2702) comprising two intersecting crossbars (annotated fig. 39) laterally disposed entirely within an interior space of the anchor (disposed transversely and within housing), wherein the two intersecting crossbars are configured to receive and hold at least a portion of one or more sutures (fig. 39), in place of alternative cinching mechanisms (see at least figs. 25a, 27d, 29a and 30a).
The substitution of one known element (two intersecting crossbars laterally disposed) for another (a single crossbar, fig. 1a of Rizk, figs. 25a, 27d, 29a and 30a of Hendricksen) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since the substitution of the two intersecting crossbars as taught by Hendricksen, would have yielded predictable results, specifically, cinching the suture. Note the combination would further provide the benefit of the looped suture being secured without having to rely on a knotted second suture, which still allows cinching of the suture to an appropriate length as needed, and adjustment of each extremity of the looped suture (para. [0137] of Hendricksen).
PNG
media_image3.png
730
812
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1A of Rizk
Regarding claim 36, Rizk (as modified) teaches the device of claim 1. Rizk further discloses wherein the device comprises a bioprinted material (3D-printed bioceramic material, considered to be bioprinted, paras. [0023], [0026], [0037] and [0103]).
Regarding claim 37, Rizk (as modified) teaches the device of claim 36. Rizk further discloses wherein the bioprinted material comprises a natural or synthetic protein, a mineral, or a combination thereof (includes collagen, para. [0050]).
Regarding claim 38, Rizk (as modified) teaches the device of claim 37. Rizk further discloses wherein the protein comprises collagen, laminin, or a combination thereof (para. [0050]).
Regarding claim 39, Rizk (as modified) teaches the device of claim 37. Rizk further discloses wherein the mineral comprises tricalcium phosphate (para. [0037]).
Claim(s) 46-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunsvold in view of Hendricksen as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Jastifer (US 2018/0243078 A1).
Regarding claim 46, Brunsvold (as modified) teaches a kit (para. [0059] of Brunsvold) for securing soft tissue to a rigid structure comprising the device of claim 1 (para. [0059] of Brunsvold).
However, Brunsvold (as modified) fails to teach the kit comprising instructions for use.
Jastifer teaches (para. [0091]), in the same field of endeavor, a kit for anchoring tissue to a bone (abstract) comprising instructions for use (para. [0091]), for the purpose of providing instructions based on the treatment intended to be performed while taking into account various considerations (para. [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kit of Brunsvold (as modified) to further include instructions for use, in order to provide instructions based on the treatment intended to be performed while taking into account various considerations, based on the teachings of Jastifer (para. [0091]).
Regarding claim 47, Brunsvold (as modified) teaches a kit (para. [0059] of Brunsvold) for securing soft tissue to a rigid structure comprising the device of claim 10 (para. [0059] of Brunsvold).
However, Brunsvold (as modified) fails to teach the kit comprising instructions for use.
Jastifer teaches (para. [0091]), in the same field of endeavor, a kit for anchoring tissue to a bone (abstract) comprising instructions for use (para. [0091]), for the purpose of providing instructions based on the treatment intended to be performed while taking into account various considerations (para. [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kit of Brunsvold (as modified) to further include instructions for use, in order to provide instructions based on the treatment intended to be performed while taking into account various considerations, based on the teachings of Jastifer (para. [0091]).
Regarding claim 48, Brunsvold (as modified) teaches the kit of claim 46. Brunsvold further discloses further comprising a drill (tool for drilling a hole into bone, paras. [0074] and [0092]).
Claim(s) 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunsvold in view of Hendricksen and Jastifer as applied to claim 47 above, and further in view of Sengun (US 2014/0081325 A1).
Regarding claim 49, Brunsvold (as modified) teaches the kit of claim 47.
However, Brunsvold (as modified) fails to teach wherein the kit further comprises a second anchor comprising a second threaded portion that is larger than the first threaded portion.
Sengun teaches (para. [0076]), in the same field of endeavor, a device (suture anchor) comprising a kit (para. [0076]), wherein the kit comprises a first anchor comprising a first threaded portion and a second anchor comprising a second threaded portion that is larger than the first threaded portion (each outer member can have a different size, considered to include threaded portions of outer members 14 being larger/smaller than other outer members 14), for the purpose of providing the most appropriate size, shape and configuration for use in a particular surgical procedure, which helps a single kit accommodate different situations (para. [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kit of Brunsvold (as modified) to include anchors of varying sizes, in order to provide the most appropriate size, shape and configuration for use in a particular surgical procedure, which helps the single kit accommodate different situations, based on the teachings of Sengun (para. [0076]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIGID K BYRD whose telephone number is (571)272-7698. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at (571)-272-4695. 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.
/BRIGID K BYRD/Examiner, Art Unit 3771