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 .
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner contacted Applicant’s representative on 05/28/2026 to indicate that independent claims 1 and 9 and their dependent claims were found to be allowable over the prior art, and to propose cancelling claims 17 – 20 as they are rejectedable under the prior art (see rejection below). Applicant’s representative did not wish to take the proposed Examiner’s Amendment; therefore, an Final rejection has been sent out.
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to the applicant’s communication filed 02/23/2026.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1, 4 – 5, 7 – 10, 12 – 14, 16 – 20 are pending in the application.
Claims 1, 9, 12, 17, and 20 are amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 5, 9 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “is least partially” in line 19, however the line is not grammatically correct, therefore the Examiner suggests the line be amended to read “is at least partially”;
Claims 4 and 5 recites “a respective suture” in lines 5 and 2, respectively, although the line is understood by the Examiner to mean “the respective suture”, as the “respective suture” is defined in claim 1, the Examiner suggests the line be amended to read “the respective suture” for the purpose of maintaining consistent language throughout the claims;
Claim 9 recites “partially with the body” in line 13, although the line is understood by the Examiner to mean “partially within the body” based on Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner suggests the line be amended to read “partially within the body” for the purpose of maintaining consistent language throughout the claims;
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.
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.
Claims 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bark et al (US 5,354,283) in view Flom et al (US 6,048,309) and Kletschka et al (US 3,910,281) (previously cited).
Regarding claims 17, 19, and 20, Bark discloses a device capable of suture management (stabilizing member 10) (abstract, col. 3 line 3 – col. 4 line 3, and Figs. 1 – 6), comprising:
a disk (stabilizing member 10) comprises a flexible material (silicone) (col. 3 lines 24 – 28) and is at least partially supported by an outer surface of a body and at least partially conforms to a surface of the body when the suture management device is placed on the body (Fig. 1);
a bottom surface (surface engaged with the tissue – shown in Fig. 1) that faces towards the body (Fig. 1);
a top surface (surface not engaged with the tissue, opposite the bottom surface, and facing away from the tissue) that is oriented away from the body (Fig. 1);
a central opening (bore 24) that is configured to be positioned around an arthroscopic entry point into the body when the suture management device is placed on the body (col. 3 line 35 – col. 4 line 3);
a second opening (slit 34) extending from an outer edge of the disk (stabilization member 10) and to the central opening (bore 24) (col. 3 lines 50 – 55), wherein the second opening (slit 34) is configured to allow the central opening (bore 24) of the suture management device to be positioned at the arthroscopic entry point or removed from the arthroscopic entry point when one or more sutures or one or more instruments are inserted into the body at the arthroscopic entry point (col. 3 lines 35 – 67);
an adhesive material coupled to the bottom surface of the disk (stabilization member 10) and configured to couple the disk to the body (col. 5 lines 5 – 9).
However, Bark is silent regarding (i) [claim 17] retention features positioned along the body portion and configured to releasably retain a suture and (ii) [claims 17, 19, and 20] wherein each of the retention features are made out of the flexible material and are extending upward from the top surface, are positioned between the opening and an outer edge of the disk shaped structure, comprise an internal opening, and wherein the sutures are positioned within the internal opening to secure the sutures to the disk.
As to (i) – (ii), Kletschka teaches a disk shaped structure (anchor member 14) with a top surface (surface 16) and a bottom surface (surface 15) and a retention feature (post 18) extending upward from the top surface, positioned between the center of the disk shape structure (anchor member 14) and an outer edge of the disk shape structure (anchor member 14), and configured to releasably secure a suture (suture 11) (abstract, col. 2 lines 23 – 35, col. 5 lines 7 – 10, and Fig. 1). Additionally, Flom teaches in a similar field of endeavor, a suture organization device comprising a disk (outer ring 102) surrounding an entry point into the body, wherein the disk comprises a set of retention features (suture retainers 104) extending upward from the surface of the disk (outer ring 102) and positioned about the central opening of the disk (outer ring 102) and the outer edge of the disk (outer ring 102) configured to secure a suture, as they are useful for suture organization in surgical procedures that require a large number of sutures (col. 12 lines 13 – 20 and Fig. 10F).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the disk (stabilization member 10) of Bark to incorporate a set of suture retention features on the exterior surface, extending upward, and between the central opening and the outer edge, based on the teachings of Kletschka and Flom, for the purpose of providing suture organization capabilities when the device is used in surgical procedures that require a large number of sutures (col. 12 lines 13 – 20 – Flom). Furthermore, Bark discloses that the disk (stabilization member 10) is constructed as a unitary structure made of silicone; therefore, it would be obvious and well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to have all of the components (which includes the retention features) of the modified disk (stabilization member 10) to be comprised of silicone. Therefore, the modified device encompasses all of the claimed limitations above.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bark et al (US 5,354,283) in view Flom et al (US 6,048,309) and Kletschka et al (US 3,910,281) (previously cited), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Fowler (US 2010/0191065 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 18, as discussed above, the combination of Bark, Kletschka, and Flom teaches the suture organizer of claim 17.
However, the combination of Bark, Kletschka, and Flom is silent regarding (i) further comprising a set of indicators, each indicator in the set of indicators is associated with a different retention feature in the set of retention features.
As to above, Fowler teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a suture organizer (suture management system 110) (abstract, paragraphs [0007] and [0014 – 0017], and Fig. 1) comprising a disk shape structure (suture management system 110 – which is disk shaped; which equates to the disk 42 of Koss) which includes a connector (aperture through 110; which equates to the aperture through disk 42 of Koss), a plurality of retention features (springs 112; which equates to the slots 44 of Koss) configured to engage and retain one or more sutures (paragraph [0019]), and a set of indicators (markings 109) for the purpose of being able to differentiate the different springs / sutures from each other (paragraph [0019] and Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the suture management device of Bark in view of Flom and Kletschka to incorporate indicators for each retention feature, based on the teachings of Fowler, for the purpose of being to differentiate the different sutures from each other (paragraph [0019] – Fowler).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7 – 10, 12 – 14, and 16 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 17 – 20 Koss, Kletschka, and Hathaway have been considered but are moot as the arguments are directed to Applicant’s amendments, and the previous rejection of the claims has been withdrawn in light of said amendments. Specifically, the rejections were withdrawn because Koss in view of Kletschka and Hathaway do not teach the claimed second opening. However, a new grounds of rejection has been set forth above in view of Bark, Flom, and Kletschka.
Applicant's arguments, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive as the previously listed prior art does not disclose or make obvious the newly added limitations in combination with the previously claimed limitations.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Restaino whose telephone number is (571)272-4748. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
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 on 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.
/Andrew Restaino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights