DETAILED ACTION
Claims 73 and 74 are amended. A complete action on the merits of pending claims 1-4, 6-15, 17, 19-20, and 72-74 appears below.
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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to applicant’s amendments filed on 03/02/2026. The claim objection documented in the Non-Final Office Action sent on 10/31/2025 is overcome and is withdrawn through Applicant’s amendment to claim 74.
Claim Interpretation
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “wherein particularly the first end section (201) of the suture element (200) further extends through the first locking loop (41) for clamping the first end section (201) to the front side (100a) of the suspension plate (100) by means of the first locking loop (41) with a locking force (FL).” in claim 12. Also, “wherein particularly the second end section (202) of the suture element (200) further extends through said second locking loop (42) for clamping the second end section (202) of the suture element (200) to the front side (100a) of the suspension plate (100) by means of the second locking loop (42) with a locking force (FL)” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 73-74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guerra (US PGPUB No. 20180360440).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
1119
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 73, Guerra discloses, a medical implant (Figure 8, assembly (160); Paragraph [0065]) comprising a medical textile (Figures 6-8, construct (20a); Paragraphs [0064]-[0072]), an implantable suspension device (Figure 8, fixation device (150); Paragraph [0065]), and an elongated flexible implant (Figures 9-10, graft (80); Paragraph [0067]), the implantable suspension device (fixation device (150)) comprising a suspension plate (Figure 8, button (55)) and a suture element (Figure 8, two interconnected suture loops (56)) engaging with the suspension plate (Figure 8; Paragraph [0066]), wherein the suture element (two interconnected suture loops (56)) comprises a first end section (See annotated Figure 8 above, (First end section)) extending from said suspension plate (button (55)) to a first end (See annotated Figure 8 above, (First end)) of said suture element (suture loops (56)) and a second end section (See annotated Figure 8 above, (Second end section)) extending from said suspension plate (button (55)) to a second end (See annotated Figure 8 above, (Second end)) of said suture element (suture loops (56)), wherein the second end section (Second end section) comprises a connecting section (See annotated Figure 8 above, (Connecting section)) connected to the medical textile by stitches (As seen in Figure 8 and disclosed in paragraph [0065], the suture loops (56) are coupling to construct (20a) through loop (22) present in construct (20a), allowing for a (Connecting section), and as seen in Figures 9-10, construct (20a) while coupled to suture loops (56), is placed over the tendon/ligament/graft (80) and coupled to it through stitches (77) as disclosed in paragraph [0068], as such, the (Connecting section) and construct (20a) are also indeed connected by stitches), and wherein the medical textile (construct (20a)) forms a tubular structure comprising an inner surface (As seen in Figure 7, the construct (20a) comprises loop (22) that gives the construct (20a) a tubular shape, which also includes an inner surface), the inner surface contacting said implant and being connected to said implant (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the inner surface of loop (22) as seen in Figures 7-8 and 14-16 contacts the graft (80) when the construct (20a) is placed over the graft (80), and is connected to the implant by stitches (77); the terms “contacting” and “being connected” do not require direct or exclusive attachment between the inner surface and the implant; the limitation is satisfied by the functional contact and coupling disclosed).
Regarding claim 74, Guerra further discloses, wherein the tubular structure (construct (20a) which comprises loop (22)) is arranged around a part of the implant (As seen in Figures 9-10 and 14-16 construct (20a) is placed over graft (80), with such an arrangement, the graft would inherently run/contact, at least partially, inside the construct (20a), while the suture tape is stitched over it; Paragraphs [0068]-[0071]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-15, 17, 19-20, and 72 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claims 1-4, 6-15, 17, 19-20, and 72 in the instant application has not been rejected using prior art because no references, or reasonable combination thereof, could be found which disclose or suggest, an implantable suspension device for fixing an elongated flexible implant in a desired position, comprising: a suspension plate and a suture element engaging with the suspension plate, wherein the suture element comprises a first end section extending from said suspension plate to a first end of said suture element and a second end section extending from said suspension plate to a second end of said suture element, wherein the second end section comprises a connecting section configured to be connected to said implant or to a medical textile, wherein said suture element comprises a plurality of fibers, which are held together throughout the second end section to form a single multi-fiber body and then separate and fan out in the connecting section along a plane parallel to the extension direction of the suture element.
In comparison, Guerra (US 2018/0360440 A1) discloses, an implantable suspension device (Figures 6-10; Paragraphs [0064]-[0068]) including a suspension plate (button (55)) and interconnected suture loops (56) used to suspend a soft tissue construct (20a). As annotated in prior office actions (see Figure 8 of Guerra), the reference shows a pair of suture loops joined near the button via eye splices (58), which pass through the construct (20a). While Guerra teaches a suspensory fixation construct comprising a button and suture loops, it does not disclose or suggest a single suture element comprising multiple fibers that remain held together throughout an entire second end section to form a unified multi-fiber body, and that only separate and fan out at a connecting section. Accordingly, the distinguishing feature of claim 1 – the presence of a single multi-fiber suture element having a second end section that remains unified before fanning out along a plane-parallel connecting section configured for attachment to an implant or textile – is neither disclosed nor rendered obvious by Guerra. The prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed composite suture construction with this specific structural transition for attachment to an implant or textile.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the "contacting" and "being connected" limitations: Applicant's argument hinges on a restrictive interpretation of "inner surface contacting said implant and being connected to said implant." However, the claim language does not require that the inner surface be in direct contact with the implant or that stitches pass through the inner surface itself. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), "contacting" means the inner surface is in functional contact with the implant through placement of the construct over it, and "being connected" means the construct is mechanically secured to the implant through any coupling mechanism.
When Guerra places the construct (20a) over graft (80) and secures it with stitches (77), the tubular construct (which comprises inner surface of loop (22)) is positioned directly against and around part of the graft (specifically the portion of the graft that is encircled by that small loop (22)). The inner surface of loop (22) functionally contacts the graft through this placement, and the entire construct is functionally connected to the graft through the stitching mechanism that maintains the construct in position relative to the graft. The claim does not require exclusive or direct attachment at the inner surface; it merely requires functional contact and coupling, both of which Guerra provides.
Applicant's distinction that stitches attach to the tape-like portion rather than the inner surface is therefore immaterial and does not defeat anticipation
With regards to claim 74, the “arranged around the graft” limitation: Applicant similarly mischaracterizes the limitation, it specifically states "wherein the tubular structure is arranged around a part of the implant." Guerra's construct (20a), when placed over and secured to graft (80), as seen in Figure 14 best, the side opening of loop (22) is directly facing/in contact with the graft (80), that portion of graft (80), no matter how small that is encircled by the permitter of loop (22), is indeed part of the implant (graft (80)). As such, the limitation is considered met.
See updated rejections above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OSAMA NEMER whose telephone number is (571)272-6365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at (571)272-4696. 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.
/O.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3771 /TAN-UYEN T HO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights