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 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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 10, 21-25, 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayhurst et al. (US 5,269,809 A) in view of Grafton (US 20050192631 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hayhurst discloses a suture-to-button assembly (Figs. 1-12) for performing surgical procedures, comprising: a button 10 including an oblong-shaped body (Fig. 1) that includes a top surface (i.e., which 18 extends through; see Figs. 1 and 2), a bottom surface (i.e., opposing top surface; see Fig. 10), a first end wall located at first longitudinal extent of the oblong-shaped body (i.e., at 16; Fig. 1), a second end wall located at a second longitudinal extent of the oblong-shaped body (i.e., at 14; Fig. 1), and a first hole that opens through the first end wall (Fig. 1); and a suture construct 20 (i.e., 25 of Fig 1) received through the first hole (Figs. 1-3), a tail portion (i.e., at 22) adapted for fixating the suture construct to the button (Fig. 1).
Hayhurst doesn’t specifically disclose: wherein the suture construct includes a primary suture strand and a filler suture strand spliced through the primary suture strand, wherein the filler suture strand is a different strand of suture from the primary suture strand; an adhesive that forms an inter-strand bond that secures the filler suture strand relative to the primary suture strand, wherein the inter-strand bond creates a stiffened tail portion that functions as a hard stop for preventing separation of the suture construct from the button.
In the same field of endeavor, namely high strength suture tape, Grafton discloses a similar suture anchoring system including two suture strands 6,4.
Grafton also discloses the suture construct includes a primary suture strand 6 and a filler suture strand 4 spliced through the primary suture strand (para. [0023]), wherein the filler suture strand is a different strand of suture from the primary suture strand (paras. [0022]-[0023]); an adhesive (i.e., such as Loctite 4014 as disclosed by para. [0026]; note also that para. [0023] discloses that the splice includes gluing) that forms an inter-strand bond that secures the filler suture strand relative to the primary suture strand (para. [0026], [0023]), wherein the inter-strand bond creates a stiffened tail portion (para. [0026]) that functions as a hard stop for preventing separation of the suture construct from the button (para. [0026]).
Note also that the adhesive of Grafton is fully capable of securing the filler suture strand relative to the primary suture strand and the tail portion functions as a hard stop for preventing separation of the suture construct from the button, if one desired to do so - note that the limitations of claim 1 are merely functional limitations and do not affect the structure of the claimed invention - a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) -see also MPEP 2114(11), which states that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Hayhurst to have a primary suture strand and a filler suture strand spliced through the primary suture strand, wherein the filler suture strand is a different strand of suture from the primary suture strand; an adhesive that forms an inter-strand bond that secures the filler suture strand relative to the primary suture strand, wherein the inter-strand bond creates a stiffened tail portion that functions as a hard stop for preventing separation of the suture construct from the button as disclosed by Grafton for purposes of creating a suture capable of a tight attachment (paras. [0026], [0029]).
Regarding claim 2, Hayhurst and Grafton disclose the suture-to-button assembly as recited in claim 1. Hayhurst also discloses wherein the tail portion 22 establishes a thickened portion of the suture construct (i.e., at least by having a knot).
Regarding claim 3, Hayhurst and Grafton disclose the suture-to-button assembly as recited in claim 1. Hayhurst also discloses wherein the tail portion includes a first outer diameter (i.e., around 22), and the first hole of the button through which the suture construct is received includes a second outer diameter (i.e., at 14), and further wherein the first outer diameter is larger than the second outer diameter (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Hayhurst and Grafton disclose the suture-to-button assembly as recited in claim 1. Hayhurst also discloses wherein a second hole opens through the second end wall (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Hayhurst and Grafton disclose the suture-to-button assembly as recited in claim 4. Hayhurst also discloses the second hole is configured to receive a tip portion of an inserter 32 of the suture-to-button assembly (i.e., during deployment of the button as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Hayhurst and Grafton disclose the suture-to-button assembly as recited in claim 1. Grafton also discloses wherein the primary suture strand includes a suture tape (para. [0026] and the filler suture strand includes a round suture (Fig. 1; para. [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hayhurst such that the primary suture strand includes suture tape for the purposes of having a suture comprising a high strength (para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 10, Hayhurst and Grafton disclose the suture-to-button assembly as recited in claim 1. The resulting device of Hayhurst and Grafton would also disclose wherein the filler suture strand is accommodated within a lumen of an outer jacket of the primary suture strand (i.e., see paras. [0022]-[0026] of Grafton).
Regarding claim 21, Hayhurst and Grafton disclose the suture-to-button assembly as recited in claim 1. Hayhurst also discloses the first hole extends through an interior section of the button that is spaced from the top surface and the bottom surface (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 22, Hayhurst and Grafton disclose the suture-to-button assembly as recited in claim 21. Hayhurst also discloses the first hole does not open through either the top surface or the bottom surface of the button (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23, Hayhurst and Grafton disclose the suture-to-button assembly as recited in claim 1. Hayhurst also discloses wherein the first end wall is slanted relative to the top surface and the bottom surface (i.e., at 16 of Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, Hayhurst and Grafton disclose the suture-to-button assembly as recited in claim 1. Hayhurst also discloses wherein the tail portion includes a cut line that establishes a terminal end of the tail portion (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 25, Hayhurst and Grafton disclose the suture-to-button assembly as recited in claim 24. Hayhurst and Grafton don’t directly disclose wherein the cut line is located at a distance of about 0.5 mm to about 5 mm outside of the first hole.
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 device of Hayhurst and Grafton to have the cut line located at a distance of about 0.5 mm to above 5mm outside of the first hole since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777(Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Hayhurst and Grafton would not operate differently with the claimed distance outside the first hole since the suture construct is only required to be a sufficient length to extend through the first hole of the button and the device would function appropriately having the claimed diameter. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the length is between 0.5mm and 5mm or 2mm and 5 mm or about 2 mm or about 5 mm (para. [0043]).
Regarding claim 32, Hayhurst and Grafton disclose the suture-to-button assembly as recited in claim 1. Hayhurst doesn’t directly disclose the adhesive penetrates through an outer jacket of the primary suture strand to establish the inter-strand bond, and further wherein the stiffened tail portion provides the hard stop without tying any knots.
Grafton also discloses the adhesive penetrates through an outer jacket of the primary suture strand to establish the inter-strand bond, and further wherein the stiffened tail portion provides the hard stop without tying any knots (paras. [0022]-[0026].
The adhesive tail of Grafton is fully capable of establishing the inter-strand bond, and further wherein the stiffened tail portion provides the hard stop without tying any knots, if one desired to do so - note that the limitations of claim 32 are merely functional limitations and do not affect the structure of the claimed invention - a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) -see also MPEP 2114(11), which states that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art).
Regarding claim 33, Hayhurst and Grafton disclose the suture-to-button assembly as recited in claim 1. Grafton also discloses wherein the filler suture strand includes a free strand end that extends from the tail portion, wherein the free strand end is configured to be tensioned to seat the filler suture strand within the primary suture strand (para. [0026] discloses tensioning the slice such that the splice is tightened when the ends are pulled).
Regarding claim 34, Hayhurst and Grafton disclose the suture-to-button assembly as recited in claim 10. Grafton also discloses wherein the adhesive is applied to an exterior surface of the outer jacket of the primary suture strand and penetrates through the outer jacket into the lumen to contact the filler suture strand, whereby the adhesive bonds the filler suture strand to an interior surface of the outer jacket (i.e., at least since para. [0023] discloses that each splice can be glued such that the glue is capable of penetrating the jacket to contact the filler suture strand such that the filler suture strand and the jacket are bonded to each other).
Regarding claim 35, Hayhurst and Grafton disclose the suture-to-button assembly as recited in claim 1. Grafton discloses wherein the filler suture strand is spliced through the primary suture strand along a splice length (paras. [0023]-[0026]). Hayhurst and Grafton don’t directly disclose at least a portion of the splice length is disposed within the first hole of the button. However, the resulting device of Hayhurst and Grafton would be capable of having the splice length disposed within the first hole. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of being obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)), to obtain the predictable result of at least a portion of the splice length is disposed within the first hole of the button since the only two choices are [1) at least a portion of the splice length is disposed within the first hole of the button, or 2) no portion of the splice length is disposed within the first hole of the button. These are the only two options apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, with there being no undue experimentation and there being a reasonable expectation of success at arriving at t least a portion of the splice length is disposed within the first hole of the button.
Claims 1, 4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiernaux et al. (US 2017/0095363 A1) in view of Grafton.
Regarding claim 1, Hiernaux discloses a suture-to-button assembly (Figs. 1-13) for performing surgical procedures, comprising: a button 32 including an oblong-shaped body (Fig. 2, para. [0049]) that includes a top surface (i.e., at 121’), a bottom surface (i.e., at 121), a first end wall located a first longitudinal extent of the oblong-shaped body (i.e., at 32), a second end wall located at a second longitudinal extent of the oblong-shaped body (i.e., opposite of 32), and a first hole that opens through the first end wall (i.e., para. [0062] discloses the anchor is hollow or tubular); and a suture construct 13, 14 received through the first hole (i.e., note that the first hole may extend through the middle of the button and may extend the entire distance, or halfway, or extend until meeting a second hole such that 13, 14 would be accommodated through the hole), a tail portion (i.e., as shown in Fig. 3) adapted for fixating the suture construct to the button (para. [0056]).
Hayhurst doesn’t specifically disclose: wherein the suture construct includes a primary suture strand and a filler suture strand spliced through the primary suture strand, wherein the filler suture strand is a different strand of suture from the primary suture strand; an adhesive that forms an inter-strand bond that secures the filler suture strand relative to the primary suture strand, wherein the inter-strand bond creates a stiffened tail portion that functions as a hard stop for preventing separation of the suture construct from the button.
In the same field of endeavor, namely high strength suture tape, Grafton discloses a similar suture anchoring system including two suture strands 6,4.
Grafton also discloses the suture construct includes a primary suture strand 6 and a filler suture strand 4 spliced through the primary suture strand (para. [0023]), wherein the filler suture strand is a different strand of suture from the primary suture strand (paras. [0022]-[0023]); an adhesive (i.e., such as Loctite 4014 as disclosed by para. [0026]) that forms an inter-strand bond that secures the filler suture strand relative to the primary suture strand (para. [0026]), wherein the inter-strand bond creates a stiffened tail portion (para. [0026]) that functions as a hard stop for preventing separation of the suture construct from the button (para. [0026]).
Note also that the adhesive of Grafton is fully capable of securing the filler suture strand relative to the primary suture strand and the tail portion functions as a hard stop for preventing separation of the suture construct from the button, if one desired to do so - note that the limitations of claim 1 are merely functional limitations and do not affect the structure of the claimed invention - a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) -see also MPEP 2114(11), which states that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Hayhurst to have a primary suture strand and a filler suture strand spliced through the primary suture strand, wherein the filler suture strand is a different strand of suture from the primary suture strand; an adhesive that forms an inter-strand bond that secures the filler suture strand relative to the primary suture strand, wherein the inter-strand bond creates a stiffened tail portion that functions as a hard stop for preventing separation of the suture construct from the button as disclosed by Grafton for purposes of creating a suture capable of a tight attachment (paras. [0026], [0029]).
Regarding claim 4, Hiernaux and Grafton disclose the suture-to-button assembly as recited in claim 1. Hiernaux also discloses a second hole opens through the second end wall (i.e., opposite of the first end wall and extending longitudinally until meeting the first hole as shown in Fig. 3; para. [0062]).
Regarding claim 6, Hiernaux and Grafton disclose the suture-to-button assembly as recited in claim 4. Hiernaux also discloses the first hole is connected to a third hole 121/121’ of the button, (Fig. 3) and further wherein the third hole opens through the top surface and the bottom surface of the button (Fig. 3; para. [0061]-[0065]).
Claims 11, 12, 26, 27, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayhurst in view of Grafton and further in view of Niver et al. (US 2021/0068806 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hayhurst and Grafton disclose the suture-to-button assembly of claim 1. Grafton discloses the suture construct of the suture-to button assembly is spliced through the suture loop construct (paras. [0022]-[0026]).
Hayhurst and Grafton don’t directly disclose a second button; and a suture loop construct connected to the button and the second button.
In the same field of endeavor, namely orthopedic stabilization devices, Niver discloses a similar device to Hayhurst and Grafton including a button 102 and a suture construct 106. Niver also discloses a second button 104; and a suture loop construct 106 connected to the button (i.e., in this case 102, but the resulting device of the combination of Hayhurst and Grafton would be the elongated button of Hayhurst) to the second button (Fig. 14A).
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 device of Hayhurst and Grafton to have a second button for purposes of inhibiting separation between two anatomical structures (para. [0034]).
Regarding claim 26, Hayhurst and Grafton disclose the suture-to-button assembly as recited in claim 4. Gayhurst and Grafton fail to directly disclose: wherein the first hole is a non-threaded opening and the second hole is a threaded opening.
Niver discloses the first and second holes being non-threaded (Figs. 14A-14E) or alternately, that they may be threaded holes (para. [0048]). Niver and Bachmaier1 fail to directly disclose: wherein the first hole is a non- threaded opening and the second hole is a threaded opening
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of being obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)), to obtain the predictable result of wherein the first hole is a non- threaded opening and the second hole is a threaded opening since the only four choices are [1) wherein the first hole is a non- threaded opening and the second hole is a threaded opening, or 2) wherein the first hole and second hole are non- threaded openings, or 3) wherein the first hole and second hole are threaded openings, or 4) wherein the first hole is a threaded opening and the second hole is a non-threaded opening]. These are the only four options apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, with there being no undue experimentation and there being a reasonable expectation of success at arriving at wherein the first hole is a non- threaded opening and the second hole is a threaded opening.
Regarding claim 27, Hayhurst, Grafton, and Niver disclose the suture-to-button assembly as recited in claim 26. The resulting device of Hayhurst, Grafton, and Niver as modified above with regard to claim 26 would also disclose comprising an inserter 32 (i.e., of Hayhurst) that includes a threaded shaft that is detachably engageable with the threaded opening (i.e., at least since in order to thread the inserter through the buttons, the inserter would also need to be threaded).
Regarding claim 29, Hayhurst discloses a suture-to-button assembly for performing surgical procedures (Figs. 1-12), comprising: a button 10 including an oblong-shaped body (Fig. 1) that includes a first end wall 16 located at first longitudinal extent of the oblong-shaped body (Fig. 1), a second end wall 14 located at a second longitudinal extent of the oblong-shaped body (Fig. 1), a first hole that opens through the first end wall, (Fig. 1) and a second hole that opens through the second end wall (Fig. 1); a suture construct 20, 25 received through the first hole (Fig. 1) a tail portion 24 adapted for fixating the suture construct within the first hole (i.e., via knot; Fig. 1); and an inserter 32.
Hayhurst fails to directly disclose:
wherein the suture construct includes a primary suture strand and a filler suture strand spliced through the primary suture strand, wherein the filler suture strand is a different strand of suture from the primary suture strand; an adhesive that forms an inter-strand bond that secures the filler suture strand relative to the primary suture strand, wherein the inter-strand bond creates a stiffened tail portion that functions as a hard stop for preventing separation of the suture construct from the button.
inserter including a threaded shaft that is detachably engageable to the second hole.
Regarding (i):
Grafton discloses the suture construct includes a primary suture strand 6 and a filler suture strand 4 spliced through the primary suture strand (para. [0023]), wherein the filler suture strand is a different strand of suture from the primary suture strand (paras. [0022]-[0023]); an adhesive (i.e., such as Loctite 4014 as disclosed by para. [0026]) that forms an inter-strand bond that secures the filler suture strand relative to the primary suture strand (para. [0026]), wherein the inter-strand bond creates a stiffened tail portion (para. [0026]) that functions as a hard stop for preventing separation of the suture construct from the button (para. [0026]).
Note also that the adhesive of Grafton is fully capable of securing the filler suture strand relative to the primary suture strand and the tail portion functions as a hard stop for preventing separation of the suture construct from the button, if one desired to do so - note that the limitations of claim 29 are merely functional limitations and do not affect the structure of the claimed invention - a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) -see also MPEP 2114(11), which states that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Hayhurst to have a primary suture strand and a filler suture strand spliced through the primary suture strand, wherein the filler suture strand is a different strand of suture from the primary suture strand; an adhesive that forms an inter-strand bond that secures the filler suture strand relative to the primary suture strand, wherein the inter-strand bond creates a stiffened tail portion that functions as a hard stop for preventing separation of the suture construct from the button as disclosed by Grafton for purposes of creating a suture capable of a tight attachment (paras. [0026], [0029]).
Regarding (ii):
Niver discloses the first and second holes being non-threaded (Figs. 14A-14E) or alternately, that they may be threaded holes (para. [0048]). Niver fails to directly disclose: wherein the first hole is a non- threaded opening and the second hole is a threaded opening.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of being obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)), to obtain the predictable result of wherein the first hole is a non- threaded opening and the second hole is a threaded opening since the only four choices are [1) wherein the first hole is a non- threaded opening and the second hole is a threaded opening, or 2) wherein the first hole and second hole are non- threaded openings, or 3) wherein the first hole and second hole are threaded openings, or 4) wherein the first hole is a threaded opening and the second hole is a non-threaded opening]. These are the only four options apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, with there being no undue experimentation and there being a reasonable expectation of success at arriving at wherein the first hole is a non- threaded opening and the second hole is a threaded opening.
The resulting device of Hayhurst, Grafton, and Niver as modified above would also disclose comprising an inserter 32 (i.e., of Hayhurst) that includes a threaded shaft that is detachably engageable with the threaded opening (i.e., at least since in order to thread the inserter through the buttons, the inserter would also need to be threaded).
Claim 28, 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bachmaier2 (WO2020/092048 A1—previously presented) in view of Grafton.
Regarding claim 28, Bachmaier2 discloses a suture-to-button assembly (Figs. 1-2; paras. [0039]-[0054]) for performing surgical procedures, comprising: a button 12; and a suture construct 14, 26, 28 fixated to the button (Fig. 1), the suture construct including a primary suture strand 28, a filler suture 30 strand spliced through the primary suture strand to establish a tail portion that fixates the suture construct to the button (para. [0052], [0054]; Fig. 1). Bachmaier2 fails to directly disclose an adhesive that adheres to a portion of the filler suture strand that is spliced through the primary suture strand to secure the filler suture strand in place relative to the primary suture strand, wherein the filler suture strand is a different strand of suture from the primary suture strand.
Grafton discloses the suture construct includes a primary suture strand 6 and a filler suture strand 4 spliced through the primary suture strand (para. [0023]), wherein the filler suture strand is a different strand of suture from the primary suture strand (paras. [0022]-[0023]); an adhesive (i.e., such as Loctite 4014 as disclosed by para. [0026]) that forms an inter-strand bond that secures the filler suture strand relative to the primary suture strand (para. [0026]), wherein the inter-strand bond creates a stiffened tail portion (para. [0026]) that functions as a hard stop for preventing separation of the suture construct from the button (para. [0026]).
Note also that the adhesive of Grafton is fully capable of securing the filler suture strand relative to the primary suture strand and the tail portion functions as a hard stop for preventing separation of the suture construct from the button, if one desired to do so - note that the limitations of claim 28 are merely functional limitations and do not affect the structure of the claimed invention - a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) -see also MPEP 2114(11), which states that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Hayhurst to have a primary suture strand and a filler suture strand spliced through the primary suture strand, wherein the filler suture strand is a different strand of suture from the primary suture strand; an adhesive that forms an inter-strand bond that secures the filler suture strand relative to the primary suture strand, wherein the inter-strand bond creates a stiffened tail portion that functions as a hard stop for preventing separation of the suture construct from the button as disclosed by Grafton for purposes of creating a suture capable of a tight attachment (paras. [0026], [0029]).
Regarding claim 30, Bachmaier2 and Grafton disclose the suture-to-button assembly as recited in claim 28. Grafton also discloses wherein the adhesive penetrates through an outer jacket of the primary suture strand to establish an inter-strand bond that allows the tail portion to function as a hard stop for preventing the suture construct from separating from the button (paras. [0022]-[0026]).
Regarding claim 31, Bachmaier2 and Grafton disclose the suture-to-button assembly as recited in claim 30. Grafton also discloses wherein the tail portion provides the hard stop without tying any knots (paras. [0022]-[0026]).
Claims 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayhurst et al. in view of Grafton, and further in view of Stecco et al. (US 20170281150 A1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1:
Regarding Applicant’s first argument that Grafton does not teach an adhesive inter-strand bond that secures the filler suture strand to the primary suture strand, Examiner disagrees. Examiner first notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim as recited only requires an adhesive that is capable of securing the filler suture strand relative to the primary suture strand and although the claim recites an “inter-strand” bond, does not require that the bond is formed between the primary suture strand and filler suture strand, only that the bond limits movement between the two. Examiner also points to para. [0023] of Grafton which also discloses “each transition (splice) is stitched, although other attachment methods, such as gluing, could be used.” Therefore, Grafton does teach that an adhesive could be used to secure the splice to create the inter-strand bond between the filler suture strand and primary suture strands. Examiner also points out that the bond creates a stiffened tail portion which is disclosed in para. [0026] of Grafton. Further, the claim recites “adhesive” and the description of Loctite 4014 is “low viscosity, one-part instant adhesive designed for tight-fitting parts” see Henkle Adhesives website.
Regarding Applicant’s second argument that Grafton teaches away from using adhesive that forms an inter-strand bond, Examiner disagrees. Examiner points to para. [0023] as disclosed above.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the proposed modification has no reasonable expectation of success, Examiner disagrees. Examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding claim 7, Examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding claim 22, Examiner notes that the interpretation of slot includes the broadest reasonable interpretation of hole.
Regarding claim 25, Applicant’s arguments are unconvincing and Examiner points back to the obvious rationale as cited in the nonfinal office action dated 02/27/26.
Regarding claim 32, Examiner points to para. [0023] of Grafton and further explained above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stucco et al. US 20170281150 A1- para. [0037] “[0037] In the example pictured, a single loop of strand material is provided with one portion fed over each end 24, 26 of the length of the foot. Further, each end of the loop is secured (relative to the other) within a splice section 158. The splice section is received within the distal side or face groove 108. Splice 158 is shown adhered in place by adhesive 160 (e.g., 4014 LOCTITE). Gluing can also help insure integrity or strength of the splice against loosening and/or pull-out failure.”
Dreyfuss et al. US 2021/0378653 A1-para. [0022] “[0022] Activation member 200 may be, for example, a flexible strand, e.g. suture or suture tape, that is coupled to the head portion 116 of the fixation device 110. The activation member 200 may also be more than one flexible strand. The activation member or strand 200 has a coupling end 202 that couples to the loop 117 of the fixation device and an opposite activating distal end 204, which bunches the head portion 116 of the fixation device when tensioned. Coupling end 202 of the activation strand 200 may couple to loop 117 of the fixation device in any coupling manner, such as by threading the end 202 through a section or splice of the loop 117, by cinching the end 202 onto a section of the loop 117 using a fixed loop at the end of the activation strand 200, or by any attachment, e.g. sewing, adhesive, or the like. The activation member or strand 200 has one or more sections 206 that extends through one or more segments of the tail portion 118 of the fixation device 110 with the activating distal end 204 being exposed or outside of the tail portion 118 for easy grasping when bunching the head portion 116 of the fixation device 110. Activating distal end 204 may also be provided with one or more loops to facilitate grasping and pulling of the activation member 200. Or the activation distal ends 204 of two activating strands can be linked or tied together to form a loop for easy grasping.”
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 RACHAEL LYNN GEIGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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 5712724695. 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.
/RACHAEL L GEIGER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/BROOKE LABRANCHE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights