Notice of Pre-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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Upon further review, the indication of allowability is withdrawn.
Claim status
35 USC 112 rejections of claims 41-42 have been overcome.
Amendments are entered.
Claims 23-24, 26-29, 34-36 and 38-50 are examined below.
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) 23, 26-28 and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Derwin (WO 2014/070903 A2).
Regarding claim 23, Derwin teaches a repair implant (200, tissue graft constructions, fig. 5) comprising:
a sheet-like first component (210, first layer, fig. 5) comprising a biological layer (¶ [0083]); and
a reinforcing strand (140, first fibers, fig. 5) interwoven into the first component in a sinusoidal pattern (¶ [0072], the first fiber is comprised of interconnected stitches and form a continuous stitching construction, in order to be continuous the fiber would go in and out of the layers in a sinusoidal patter) such that the reinforcing strand extends through varying depths of a thickness of the sheet-like first component (As the strand goes into the sheet it's going through "varying depths”).
Regarding claim 26, Derwin further teaches the reinforcing strand is interwoven in a direction extending generally parallel to a longitudinal dimension of the sheet-like first component (see annotated fig. 5, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
327
439
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27, Derwin further teaches the reinforcing strand is interwoven in a direction extending generally orthogonal to a longitudinal dimension of the sheet-like first component (see annotated fig. 5, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
327
439
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 28, Derwin further teaches the reinforcing strand is interwoven in two or more directions relative to a longitudinal dimension of the sheet- like first component (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 49, Derwin teaches a repair implant (200, tissue graft constructions, fig. 5) comprising:
a sheet-like first component (210, first layer, fig. 5) comprising a biological layer (¶ [0083]); and
a reinforcing strand (140, first fibers, fig. 5) interwoven into the first component with the reinforcing strand extending through varying depths of a thickness of the first component (As the strand goes into the sheet it's going through “varying depths”).
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.
Claim(s) 24 and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derwin in view of Murray (US 2020/0171203 A1).
Regarding claims 24 and 50, Derwin fails to teach the reinforcing strand is a different color than the first component. However, Murray discloses a scaffold device to repair a torn ligament that teaches the reinforcing strand is a different color than the first component (¶ [0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the repair implant of Derwin to include the reinforcing strand is a different color than the first component as taught by Murray in order to aid in identifying the sutures during the procedure (¶ [0049], Murray).
Claim(s) 29, 34-35, 38-46 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derwin in view of Kaiser (US 2009/0004146 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Derwin fails to teach loops used for securing the repair implant to a native structure. However, Kaiser discloses an apparatus for soft tissue attachment that teaches one or more loops (38, suture portion, fig. 2A) within an edge (48, activation region, fig. 2A) of the sheet-like first component or external to the edge of the sheet- like first component (fig. 2A) that are configured to be used for securing the repair implant to a native structure (38, suture portion, fig. 2A). The phrase “configured to be used for securing the repair implant to a native structure” is a functional recitation (see MPEP 2114.II). The prior art is not required to explicitly disclose the recited function, but merely have the capability of performing [or being manipulated to] the recited function in order to meet the claim requirements. In this case, the suture portion is considered to be capable of being used for securing the repair implant to a native structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the repair implant of Derwin to include loops used for securing the repair implant to a native structure as taught by Kaiser in order to manipulate the implant to assist in fixing a soft tissue graft with an anchor (¶ [0040], Kaiser).
Regarding claim 34, Derwin teaches a repair implant (200, tissue graft constructions, fig. 5) comprising:
a sheet-like first component (210, first layer, fig. 5) comprising a biological layer (¶ [0083]);
a second component (220, second layer, fig. 5), a first side surface of the second component disposed on the first component (see annotated fig. 5, below), the second component comprising a synthetic material (¶ [0083]) and including a plurality of pores (¶ [0045-0046]); and
a plurality of strands (140, first fibers, 142, second fibers, fig. 5) woven back and forth within the repair implant to form a reinforcing structure extending through the repair implant (¶ [0072], the first fibers are comprised of interconnected stitches and form a continuous stitching construction, in order to be continuous the fiber would go in and out or back and forth between the layers), the plurality of strands extending through varying depths of a thickness of the repair implant (as the strand goes into the sheet it's going through "varying depths”).
PNG
media_image3.png
303
363
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Derwin fails to teach the plurality of strands forming loops that extend beyond an edge. However, Kaiser discloses an apparatus for soft tissue attachment that teaches the plurality of strands forming loops (38, suture portion, fig. 2A) that extend beyond an edge (48, activation region, fig. 2A) of the repair implant (fig. 2A) such that the loops are configured to be used for securing the repair implant to a native structure (38, suture portion, fig. 2A). The phrase “the loops are configured to be used for securing the repair implant to a native structure” is a functional recitation (see MPEP 2114.II). The prior art is not required to explicitly disclose the recited function, but merely have the capability of performing [or being manipulated to] the recited function in order to meet the claim requirements. In this case, the suture portion is considered to be capable of being used for securing the repair implant to a native structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the repair implant of Derwin to include the plurality of strands forming loops that extend beyond an edge as taught by Kaiser in order to manipulate the implant to assist in fixing a soft tissue graft with an anchor (¶ [0040], Kaiser).
Regarding claim 35, Derwin further teaches the biological layer is bioabsorbable (¶ [0040]).
Regarding claim 38, Derwin further teaches the plurality of strands forming loops comprise sutures (¶ [0055]).
Regarding claim 39, Derwin further teaches the sutures comprise absorbable sutures (¶ [0055]).
Regarding claim 40, Derwin further teaches the sutures comprise non- absorbable sutures (¶ [0055]).
Regarding claim 41, Derwin further teaches the first side surface of the second component in contact with the first component is chemically modified to covalently bond the first component and the second component (¶ [0058]).
Regarding claim 42, Derwin further teaches the first side surface of the second component in contact with the first component is chemically modified to ionically bond the first component and the second component (¶ [0058]).
Regarding claim 43, Derwin further teaches the second component comprises one or more strands forming a ripstop pattern (¶ [0053], fig. 5).
Regarding claim 44, Derwin further teaches the sheet-like first component comprises collagen (¶ [0006] and ¶[0043]).
Regarding claim 45, Derwin further teaches the second component comprises a generally solid layer (¶ [0047-0050], one skilled in the art would choose appropriate materials to meet the desired properties) and the plurality of pores are mechanically introduced (¶ [0048], one skilled in the art would recognize the decision of materials would mechanically introduce the pore properties).
Regarding claim 46, Derwin further teaches the synthetic material comprises non-resorbable polyester (¶ [0050]).
Regarding claim 48, Derwin further teaches the first component and the second component are stitched together (¶ [0083]).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derwin in view of Kaiser as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Ladet (US 2009/0004239 A1).
Regarding claim 36, Derwin in view of Kaiser fails to teach a low molecular weight collagen. However, Ladet discloses a multilayer structure with a reinforcement member that teaches a low molecular weight collagen (¶ [0015]) disposed within the pores of the second component. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the repair implant of Derwin and Kaiser to include a low molecular weight collagen as taught by Ladet since it is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, which courts have recognized supports a conclusion of obviousness (see MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derwin in view of Kaiser as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Nie (US 2018/0193519 A1).
Regarding claim 47, Derwin in view of Kaiser fails to teach ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene. However, Nie discloses a layered implant that teaches the synthetic material comprises ultra-high molecular weight (UHMW) polyethylene (¶ [0010]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the repair implant of Derwin and Kaiser to include ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene as taught by Nie since it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, which courts have recognized supports a conclusion of obviousness (see MPEP 2143).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M DUDDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm 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, THOMAS BARRETT can be reached at (571) 272-4746. 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.
/T.M.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/THOMAS C BARRETT/SPE, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights