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 .
Response to Amendment
The claims filed on February 20th, 2026, have been entered. Claims 1-7, 9, and 13-24 remain pending in the Application. Claims 12 and 25 have been canceled by the Applicant. The claim amendments overcome the previous claim objections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 20th, 2026, with regards to claims 22-24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Asfora et al. (Pub. No. 2006/0247642) nor Stone et al. (Pub. No. 2006/0247642) disclose the flow passages extend through the internal surface of the anchor body and are disposed between the axial drive grooves. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Asfora et al. has not been used in the rejection of claims 22-24. Second, Stone et al. discloses the flow passages 112 extend all the way through the anchor body to communicate with the internal surface (FIG. 3), and are placed between the axial drive grooves (FIGs. 3 and 5).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed February 20th, 2026, with respect to claims 1-7, 9, and 13-21, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 1-7, 9, and 13-21 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 15 of claim 22, “the internal surface the anchor body” should read “the internal surface of the anchor body” to correct a typo. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stone et al. (Pub. No. 2006/0247642) in view of Feezor et al. (Pub. No. 2017/0071592).
Regarding claim 22, Stone et al. as discloses a suture anchor (102; [0050]; FIG. 5) comprising:
a suture anchor body (106) having an external surface (FIG. 1: 106 has an external surface);
a thread (114) extending from the external surface (FIG. 1: 114 is on the external surface of 106);
an internal surface (FIG. 1: 106 has an internal surface) defining a lumen (FIG. 5: the internal surface of 106 defines 115) extending from a proximal end of the suture anchor body to a distal end of the suture anchor body through a longitudinal axis (A) of the suture anchor body ([0053] 115 extends the entire length of 106 along A); and
the internal surface defining a plurality of axial drive grooves ([0053] the four grooves between 118; FIG. 5) that extend radially outward from the internal surface (FIG. 5: the grooves between 118 are on the internal side of 106), wherein each respective axial drive groove of the plurality of axial drive grooves extends from the proximal end of the anchor body to the distal end of the anchor body in a direction parallel with the longitudinal axis of the anchor body ([0053] 118 extends the entire body 106 parallel to A),
wherein a plurality of flow passages (112) are defined to extend radially through the suture anchor body and communicate with the lumen (FIG. 3: 112 extend through 106 to the internal lumen), wherein each flow passage extends radially through the internal surface of the anchor body (FIG. 3: 112 extend through to the internal surface) and is disposed between the plurality of axial drive grooves (FIG. 3: 112 are located between the grooves).
Stone et al. does not disclose the thread is a double helix thread.
Feezor et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor of suture anchoring devices (Abstract) and discloses a suture anchor (100; FIGs. 1-3; [0075]) with threads (114), where the threads are provided as a double helix (FIG. 3: 114a and 114b) for the purpose of enabling a relatively high thread density to enhance bone fixation of the anchor, while maintaining a relatively high thread pitch, which reduces the number of turns necessary to drive the anchor into tissue ([0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the threads of Stone et al. to be double helix threads, as taught by Feezor et al., for the purpose of enabling a relatively high thread density to enhance bone fixation of the anchor, while maintaining a relatively high thread pitch, which reduces the number of turns necessary to drive the anchor into tissue.
Regarding claim 23, Stone et al. as modified by Feezor et al. further discloses the at least one thread is a buttress thread (Stone et al. FIG. 1: 114 are buttress threads; Feezor et al. FIG. 3: 114a and 114b are also buttress threads).
Regarding claim 24, Stone et al. as modified by Feezor et al. further discloses the suture anchor is made from a plastic material (Stone et al. [0052] 102 can be made of plastics such as Lactosorb).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9, and 13-21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 1 and 17, the prior art does not disclose, in combination with the remaining claim limitations, that each axial drive groove comprises a contact surface disposed radially outward relative to the inside surface of the anchor body, the contact surface having a width as measured in a circumferential direction, and the width of the contact surface is greater than a width between radially innermost points of adjacent first and second side surfaces as measured across the axial drive groove defined between the adjacent first and second side surfaces and in the circumferential direction.
The closest prior art reference, Stone et al. (Pub. No. 2006/0247642), does not disclose, alone or in combination, the width of the contact surface as measured in a circumferential direction is greater than the width between radially innermost points of adjacent first and second side surfaces as measured across the axial drive groove defined between the adjacent first and second side surfaces and in the circumferential direction. Instead, as shown in FIG. 5, the width of contact surface 115 in the circumferential direction between each rib 118 is less than the width between the peaks of adjacent ribs 118 (the radially innermost point of each side surface) in the circumferential direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
300
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Another close prior art reference, Asfora et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,631,905), does not disclose, alone or in combination, the width of the contact surface as measured in a circumferential direction is greater than the width between radially innermost points of adjacent first and second side surfaces as measured across the axial drive groove defined between the adjacent first and second side surfaces and in the circumferential direction. Instead, as shown in FIGs. 1B and 1D-1E, the width of the contact surface in 118a-118f between the grooves 109 is less than the width between the peaks of adjacent grooves 109.
A third close prior art reference, Feezor et al. (Pub. No. 2017/0071592), does not disclose, alone or in combination, alone or in combination, the width of the contact surface as measured in a circumferential direction is greater than the width between radially innermost points of adjacent first and second side surfaces as measured across the axial drive groove defined between the adjacent first and second side surfaces and in the circumferential direction. Instead, as shown in FIG. 4, the width of the contact surface between each 108 is a point and therefore must be smaller than the width between the peaks of the threads 114.
Claims 2-7, 9, 13-16, and 18-21 are allowable for their dependence on claims 1 and 17, respectively.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 JAMES RYAN MCGINNITY whose telephone number is (571)272-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-5:30 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.
/JRM/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/KATHLEEN S HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights