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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 13-16 appear to be mislabeled as “Withdrawn” however in view of applicant’s arguments filed on 4/9/26 the claims appear to be cancelled therefore it should be labeled as –Cancelled--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 17-19 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maiorino et al. (2008/0132943) in view of Nawrocki et al. (2010/0160961).
Maiorino discloses a knotless wound closure system (Fig. 4-7) comprising: an elongated suture filament (20) (Fig. 1 and [0015]) having a proximal end (end with needle as seen in Fig. 1) affixed to a needle (22) (Fig. 1 and [0015]) and a distal end (Fig. 1), the elongated suture filament having one or more apertures (16) (Fig. 1-2d and [0015-16]) dimensioned to admit one-way passage of the elongated suture filament therethrough (Fig. 4-7, [0015], and [0022]), wherein the elongated suture filament further comprises one or more prominences (14) (Fig. 1); , wherein at least a portion of the elongated suture filament is flexible (Fig. 4-7 and [0015]); wherein at least a portion of the elongated suture filament is resorbable ([0025]); wherein at least a portion of the elongated suture filament has a circular cross section (Fig. 3d and [0017]).
Maiorino discloses all the claimed limitations discussed above; however, Maiorino does not disclose that at least one of the prominences has a cone shaped configuration.
Nawrocki discloses another well-known knotless suture wound closure system having an elongated suture filament (102, 202) (Fig. 3a-5) having a proximal end (104) (Fig, 3a) and a distal end (106) (Fig. 3a) wherein the elongated suture filament further comprises one or more prominences (108, 208) (Fig. 3a-5), and wherein at least one of the prominences has a cone shaped configuration (Fig. 3a-5 and [0051]); wherein the prominences have a leading edge (smaller diameter of cone shape as seen in Fig. 3a-5) and a trailing edge (larger diameter of cone shape as seen in Fig. 3a-5) and wherein the leading edge has a smaller diameter than the trailing edge (Fig. 3a-5); wherein the leading edge of the prominence is disposed toward the proximal end of the suture and the trailing edge of the prominence is disposed toward the distal end of the suture (Fig. 3a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prominences of Maiorino to have a cone shape configuration, as taught by Nawrocki, since it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element for another will yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prominences of Maiorino to have a cone shape configuration, as taught by Nawrocki, in order to decrease the force needed to pull the surgical suture through tissue or a prosthetic device as well as being able to collapse easily during insertion, but provide significant holding strength when pulled in the opposite direction ([0013]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maiorino et al. (2008/0132943) in view of Nawrocki et al. (2010/0160961) and further in view of Avelar et al. (2011/0319932)
Maiorino teaches all the claimed limitations discussed above however; Maiorino does not disclose that one or more of the apertures or one or more of the prominences are color-coded.
Avelar discloses a suture with markers wherein the markers can be locator bands having a visually identifiable distinctive coloring ([0067]) or is located one of a plurality of locator bands having visually identifiable distinctive coloring ([0067]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Maiorino in view of Nawrocki with locator bands/markers in view of the teachings of Avelar, in order to identify the location of the of portions of the suture, the depth of the suture, or to indicate suture stress ([0067]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/9/26 have been considered but are moot in view of teh new grounds of rejection.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANNE DORNBUSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3515. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 9 am-3 pm.
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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at (571) 272-7134. 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.
/DIANNE DORNBUSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights