Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/516,973

KNOTLESS SUTURES INCLUDING INTEGRATED CLOSURES

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Nov 02, 2021
Examiner
DORNBUSCH, DIANNE
Art Unit
3771
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Stitchlock, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
544 granted / 741 resolved
+3.4% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+35.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 1m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
765
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
39.3%
-0.7% vs TC avg
§102
33.1%
-6.9% vs TC avg
§112
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 741 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-12), Species III (Fig. 3a-h), and Subspecies ii (Fig. 8b) in the reply filed on 11/6/25 is acknowledged. Claims 7, 9, and 13-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/6/25. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph [0001] the corresponding patent number for the parent application must be added. Appropriate correction is required. 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 11-12 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. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the barb" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maiorino et al. (2008/0132943). Maiorino discloses the following claimed limitations: Claim 1: A self-retaining suture comprising: an elongated barbed suture filament (20) (Fig. 1 and [0015]) affixed to a needle (22) (Fig. 1 and [0015]) and a plurality of visually identifiable apertures (16) (Fig. 1-2d and [0015-16]) arrayed at fixed intervals along a longitudinal axis of the elongated barbed suture filament (Fig. 1-2d and [0015-16]), wherein the apertures are formed with opposing aperture walls (a wall at the top opening of the aperture and the other one on the bottom opening of the aperture seen in Fig. 1-2d) having a thickness substantially similar to that of the suture filament (where the aperture goes through the suture filament so the thickness between the wall at the top aperture opening and the bottom aperture opening would be similar to that of the filament (Fig. 1-2d and [0015-16])), and wherein the apertures are dimensioned to admit one-way passage of the suture laterally through the apertures while barbs (14) on the suture filament resist backwards movement of the suture filament in a direction substantially opposite a direction of deployment of the suture (Fig. 4-7, [0015], and [0022]). Claim 2: wherein the opposing aperture walls are pliable and able to stretch (the suture is made of a flexible material ([0014]) and with tension causes the aperture to wedge ([0019]). Claim 3: wherein the opposing aperture walls are pliable and flatten under tension (the suture is made of a flexible material ([0014]) and with tension causes the aperture to wedge/flatten ([0019]). Claim 4: wherein the self-retaining suture is formed of a bioresorbable material ([0025-26]). Claim 5: wherein the self-retaining suture is formed of a non- bioresorbable material ([0025-26]). Claim 8: wherein the suture filament is circular or generally circular in cross section (Fig. 3d and [0017]). Claim 10: wherein the barbs (14) are disposed on the body of the suture filament in a disposition selected from: unidirectional or bidirectional, evenly spaced down the length of the suture filament in symmetrical pairs, helically placed along a longitudinal axis of the suture filament, in a staggered disposition along the longitudinal axis of the suture filament, in a twist cut multiple spiral disposition along the longitudinal axis of the suture filament, in an overlapping disposition along the longitudinal axis of the suture filament, in a random disposition along the longitudinal axis of the suture filament, and combinations thereof (Fig. 1 and [0015]). Claim 11: A self-retaining suture comprising: a plurality of visually identifiable apertures (16) (Fig. 1-2d and [0015-16]) interconnected by barbed suture filament (20) (Fig. 1 and [0015]), wherein the apertures are formed with opposing aperture walls (a wall at the top opening of the aperture and the other one on the bottom opening of the aperture seen in Fig. 1-2d) having a thickness substantially similar to that of the suture filament (where the aperture goes through the suture filament so the thickness between the wall at the top aperture opening and the bottom aperture opening would be similar to that of the filament (Fig. 1-2d and [0015-16])), and wherein the apertures are dimensioned to admit one-way passage of the barbed suture filament laterally through the apertures while the barbs (14) on the suture filament resist backwards movement of the suture filament through the apertures in a direction substantially opposite a direction of deployment of the suture between opposing tissue surfaces of a wound (Fig. 4-7, [0015], and [0022]) thus permitting a succession of one-way self-retaining loops to be formed across the wound without use of knots (Fig. 1 and [0015] where the needle can be threaded again through any of the apertures and would form multiple one-way loops). 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) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maiorino et al. (2008/0132943) in view of Avelar et al. (2011/0319932) Maiorino teaches all the claimed limitations discussed above however; Maiorino does not disclose locator bands as claimed. 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 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]). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art appears to teach the claimed limitations when considered alone or in combination. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 02, 2021
Application Filed
Dec 16, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594139
DEVICES AND METHODS TO ACCESS A TARGET WITHIN THE BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582395
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR FORMING A SELF-LOCKING ADJUSTABLE LOOP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575820
SURGICAL FIXATION SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569243
SYSTEMS FOR PERCUTANEOUS VENTRICULOPLASTY USING VENTRICULAR ANCHORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12558099
DEVICES, TREATMENTS AND METHODS TO RESTORE TISSUE ELASTIC RECOIL
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+35.5%)
4y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 741 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month