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
In light of Applicant’s amendment, claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9-10, 13, and 18-20 is/are amended and claim(s) is/are canceled. Claim(s) 4, 6-8, and 11-12 were previously canceled. Claims 21-22 are added. Claims 1-3, 5, 9-10, and 13-22 are now pending examination.
The rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to claim(s) 1, 3, 18-19 is/are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 09/10/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 under Henderson 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but are moot as the arguments are directed to Applicant’s amendments, and the previous rejection of the claims has been withdrawn in light of said amendments.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 amendment to remove the limitation “a plurality of through holes are provided… wherein the through holes provided in the strap portion penetrate from the outer surface of the strap portion to the inner surface of the strap portion or penetrate from the outer surface of the strap portion to the lateral surface of the strap portion” overcomes the previous rejection as written. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Höglund.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a tightening part” and “a tightened part” (claim 1, 21) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “the through holes provided in the strap portion and the head portion is configured” should read “the through holes provided in the strap portion and the head portion are configured”
Claim 13: “openings of lateral surface side” should read “openings of a lateral surface side”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “tightening part” in claim 1 and 21, “tightened part” in claim 1 and 21, and “locking feature” in claim 1 and 21.
Claim 1 and 21 recites the limitation of a “tightening part”. The term “part” is used as a substitute for “means” and is modified by functional language “tightening”. There is no corresponding structure in the claim, therefore invoking 112(f). Further, there is no corresponding structure in the specification, therefore the scope of the limitation is indefinite.
Claim 1 and 21 recites the limitation of a “tightened part”. The term “part” is used as a substitute for “means” and is modified by functional language “tightening”. There is no corresponding structure in the claim, therefore invoking 112(f). Further, there is no corresponding structure in the specification, therefore the scope of the limitation is indefinite.
Claim 1 and 21 recites the limitation of a “locking feature”. The term “feature” is used as a substitute for “means” and is modified by functional language “locking”. There is no corresponding structure in the claim, therefore invoking 112(f). Based on the specification, the corresponding structure for “locking feature” is “a combination of a part on the strap portion and a part on the head portion configured to be tightened to the part on the strap portion. As the locking feature, mentioned can be, for example, a combination of at least one ratchet pawl4 provided on the head portion and a plurality of ratchet teeth provided along the longitudinal direction of the strap portion (see FIG. 1 or FIG. 5), a combination of at least one depression provided in the head portion and a plurality of protrusions provided along the longitudinal direction of the strap portion (see FIG. 6 or FIG. 15); or a combination of at least one protrusion provided on the head portion and a plurality of depressions provided along the longitudinal direction of the strap portion (see FIG. 7 and FIG. 9).” (Paragraph 0023) or equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-10, and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 is amended to recite the limitation “the locking feature that allows a tightened part of the strap portion to be tightened to a tightening part of the head portion”. However, the disclosure does not include or define any “tightening part” or “tightened part”, thus the limitation raises new matter.
Claims 2-3, 5, 8-10, and 13-20 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-10, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the through holes provided in the head portion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitation “tightening part” and “tightened part” in claims 1 and 21 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The limitation “tightening part” invokes 112(f), as stated above, and the disclosure does not provide corresponding structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For examination purposes, the limitation will be seen as referring to the “locking feature” as disclosed in the specification rather than the locking feature comprising “a tightening part of the head portion and a tightening part of the strap portion” presently recited in claim 1. Based on the specification, the corresponding structure for “locking feature” is “a combination of a part on the strap portion and a part on the head portion configured to be tightened to the part on the strap portion. As the locking feature, mentioned can be, for example, a combination of at least one ratchet pawl4 provided on the head portion and a plurality of ratchet teeth 5 provided along the longitudinal direction of the strap portion (see FIG. 1 or FIG. 5), a combination of at least one depression provided in the head portion and a plurality of protrusions provided along the longitudinal direction of the strap portion (see FIG. 6 or FIG. 15); or a combination of at least one protrusion provided on the head portion and a plurality of depressions provided along the longitudinal direction of the strap portion (see FIG. 7 and FIG. 9).” (Paragraph 0023) or equivalents thereof.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-3, 5, 9-10, and 13-20 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a lateral side edge of the strap portion”, however, claim 1, from which this claim depends recites “a lateral surface”. It is unclear how these features are different, thus for examination purposes, the limitation will be seen as referring to the same lateral surface of the strap portion.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein the through hole penetrates from the outer surface to the inner surface in the head portion or penetrates from the outer surface to the lateral surface in the head portion;” However, claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the through hole penetrates from the outer surface to the inner surface in the strap portion or penetrates from the outer surface to the lateral surface in the strap portion” with no requirement for the through holes to be provided in the head portion. It is unclear how the same through hole that penetrates from the outer surface to the inner surface in the strap portion or penetrates from the outer surface to the lateral surface in the strap portion can also penetrate from the outer surface to the inner surface in the head portion or penetrate from the outer surface to the lateral surface in the head portion.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "each passage". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. claim 23 is rejected for its dependence on claim 22.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the passages" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes correcting the antecedent of claim 22 would likely resolve this lack of antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 5, 9, 14-16 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Höglund (US 20170172625 A1).
As best understood in view of the 112(b) issues above, regarding claim 1, Höglund discloses a medical instrument (100), comprising
a flexible strap portion (110) having an outer surface (112), an inner surface (114), a lateral surface (side edge of strap 110), a proximal end (portion of 110 encompassing 116) and a distal end (portion of 110 encompassing 130) (Figure 1; Paragraph 0038);
a head portion (130) distally extending from and connected to the distal end of the strap portion, wherein the head portion has an outer surface (upper surface of 130), an inner surface (151) and a lateral surface (side edges of 130) (Figure 1, 5; Paragraph 0049); and
a tail portion (116) proximally extending from and connected to the proximal end of the strap portion (Figure 1; Paragraph 0039);
wherein the head portion and the strap portion have a locking feature (140) that allows a tightened part of the strap portion to be tightened to a tightening part of the head portion at the desired position of the strap portion (Figure 4-5; Paragraph 0043), (As indicated above, the limitation “locking feature” invokes 112(f). The corresponding structure in Höglund is a locking tooth which interlocks perforations 120, which is equivalent to “at least one protrusion provided on the head portion as the tightening part of the head portion and a plurality of depressions provided on the strap portion along the longitudinal direction as the tightened part of the strap portion” , as disclosed in the present disclosure.),
a loop having a desired size composed of the head portion and a distal end side part of the strap portion can be formed so that the loop surrounds a living tissue in close relation to the living tissue, when tightened by the locking feature, wherein an outer surface of the loop is the outer surface of the strap portion and the outer surface of the head portion and an inner surface of the loop is the inner surface of the strap portion and the inner surface of the head portion (Figure 10; Paragraph 0108), and
a plurality of through holes (120) are provided, along the longitudinal direction, in the distal end side part of the strap portion that forms the loop and lateral to the tightening part of the head portion (Figure 6-8; Paragraph 0042);
wherein the through holes provided in the strap portion penetrate from the outer surface of the strap portion to the inner surface of the strap portion (“array of through-holes or apertures 120 through the band 110”, thus the perforations 120 are through holes penetrating the strap) (Figure 6-8; Paragraph 0042), and the through holes provided in the strap portion and the head portion (150) are configured so that a suture thread is connected to the head portion and the distal end side part of the strap portion without passing a suture needle or the suture thread through the living tissue surrounded with the loop (the device is fully capable of allowing a suture through the through holes without looping the suture through the tissue) (Figure 10).
Regarding claim 2, Höglund further discloses wherein the locking feature is composed a combination of at least one protrusion provided on the head portion as the tightening part of the head portion and a plurality of depressions provided on the strap portion along the longitudinal direction as the tightened part of the strap portion (Paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 3, Höglund further discloses wherein the through holes are arranged evenly around the entire circumference of the loop (Figure 10).
Regarding claim 5, Höglund further discloses wherein the through holes are configured so that the suture thread is passed through the through holes without the living tissue when the loop surrounds the living tissue in close relation to the living tissue (Figure 10) (the through holes 120 are located on the exterior of the device thus if the suture is threaded through, thus the through holes are fully capable such that a suture thread does not touch living tissue when the suture thread is passed through the feature for keeping connected to thread).
Regarding claim 9, Höglund further discloses wherein the through-holes are straight holes (Figure 6-8; Paragraph 0042) (the through holes extend straight through the strap thus are straight through holes).
Regarding claim 14, Höglund further discloses wherein the strap portion, the head portion and the tail portion are composed of a biodegradable and bioabsorbable polymer (Paragraph 0097-100).
Regarding claim 15, Höglund further discloses ligating the living tissue (Paragraph 0108).
Regarding claim 16, Höglund further discloses wherein the living tissue is an organum or an organ (Paragraph 0111).
Regarding claim 18, Höglund further discloses wherein the through holes provided in the strap portion are arranged in a ladder shape, and penetrate from the outer surface of the strap portion to the inner surface of the strap portion (Figure 6-8; Paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 20, Höglund further discloses wherein the through holes provided in the head portion penetrate from the outer surface of the head portion to the lateral surface of the head portion (Figure 5).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pedrini (US 9315142 B1).
As best understood in view of the 112(b) issues above, regarding claim 21, Pedrini discloses a strap, which can be used as a medical instrument ("[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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.), comprising
a flexible strap portion (10) having an outer surface (20), an inner surface (22), a lateral surface (side surface of strap 10), a proximal end (end of strap 10 encompassing 14) and a distal end (end of strap 10 encompassing 16) (Figure 6; Col 4, line 41-43, line 54-59);
a head portion (16) distally extending from and connected to the distal end of the strap portion wherein the head portion has an outer surface, an inner surface and a lateral surface (Figure 6; Col 4, line 41-43); and
a tail portion (14) proximally extending from and connected to the proximal end of the strap portion (Figure 6; Col 4, line 41-43);
wherein the head portion and the strap portion have a locking feature (18+24) that allows a tightened part of the strap portion (portion of strap with ratchet teeth 24) to be tightened to a tightening part of the head portion (34) at the desired position of the strap portion (As indicated above, the limitation “locking feature” invokes 112(f). The corresponding structure in Pedrini is a ratchet mechanism including a pawl and ratchet teeth, which is equivalent to least one ratchet pawl provided on the head portion and a plurality of ratchet teeth provided along the longitudinal direction on the strap portion , as disclosed in the present disclosure.) (Figure 6; Col 4, line 43-46; Col 5, lines 4-7),
a loop (shown in Figure 9) having a desired size composed of the head portion and a distal end side part of the strap portion can be formed when tightened by the locking feature wherein an outer surface of the loop is the outer surface of the strap portion and the outer surface of the head portion and an inner surface of the loop is the inner surface of the strap portion and the inner surface of the head portion (Figure 9; Col 4, line 67-Col 5, line 7), and
a plurality of lintel bridges (40) are provided, along the longitudinal direction, on the outer surface of the distal end side part of the strap portion that forms the loop and on the outer surface lateral to the tightening part of the head portion (Figure 9; Col 5, line 26-31), each passage under the lintel bridges (spaces of segmented tunnel) is fully capable so that if a suture thread is connected to the head portion and the distal end side part of the strap portion without passing a suture needle or the suture thread through a living tissue when the loop surrounds the living tissue in close relation to the living tissue (the bridges are formed on the exterior of the strap 10, thus a suture is fully capable of passing under the bridges without touching any tissue.) (Figure 9; Col 5, line 26-31).
Regarding claim 22, as best understood in view of the 112(b) issues above, Pedrini further discloses wherein the passages under the lintel bridges are configured so that the suture thread is passed through the passages without touching the living tissue when the loop surrounds the living tissue in close relation to the living tissue (the bridges are formed on the exterior of the strap 10, thus a suture is fully capable of passing under the bridges without touching any tissue.) (Figure 9; Col 5, line 26-31).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Höglund in view of Owen (US 20140082923 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Höglund discloses the medical instrument according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the through holes are curved holes.
However, Owen is directed to a securement device (10) and teaches the through holes (26) are curved holes (the through holes are circular, thus are curved) (Figure 1.1; Paragraph 0038).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the device of Höglund with curved through holes as taught by Owen, since it has been held that changing the shape was a matter a choice one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP 2144. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Höglund in view of LaPorte et al. (US 20070028426 A1) (previously of record).
Regarding claim 13, Höglund discloses the medical instrument according to claim 1, but fails to specifically disclose a berm along the longitudinal direction of the strap portion between openings of the lateral surface of the through holes provided in the strap portion and a lateral edge of the strap portion.
However, Laporte is directed to a ligation device and teaches a berm (26) along the longitudinal direction of the strap portion (10) between the slits (30) and an edge of the strap portion (Figure 3; Paragraph 0024; 0026). When combined with the device of Höglund, the modification would result in a berm along the longitudinal direction of the strap portion between openings of the lateral surface of the through holes provided in the strap portion and a lateral edge of the strap portion.
It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Höglund with the teachings of LaPorte by incorporating a berm along the longitudinal direction of the strap portion between openings of the lateral surface of the through holes provided in the strap portion and a lateral edge of the strap portion in order to help align the pawl and teeth and aid in insertion of the tail within the head by providing stiffness to the tail (LaPorte Paragraph 0024). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Höglund such that a berm along the longitudinal direction of the strap portion between openings of the lateral surface of the through holes provided in the strap portion and a lateral edge of the strap portion, as taught by LaPorte, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to similarly structured tying devices.
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Höglund in view of Jafari et al. (US 20140031864 A1) (previously of record).
Regarding claim 17, Höglund discloses the medical instrument according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the through holes is a C-shaped through hole with a slit wherein a width of the slit is less than an inner diameter of the through hole.
However, Jafari is directed to a securement device and teaches a through hole (60) is a C-shaped through hole with a slit (68) wherein a width of the slit is less than an inner diameter of the through hole (Figure 6A-B; Paragraph 0067).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Höglund such that each of the through holes is a C-shaped through hole with a slit wherein a width of the slit is less than an inner diameter of the through hole, as taught by Jafari, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to securement devices. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Höglund with the teachings of Jafari by incorporating wherein each of the through holes is a C-shaped through hole with a slit wherein a width of the slit is less than an inner diameter of the through hole in order to allow lateral movement of a suture or a tool such as a needle into the through hole (Jafari Paragraph 0067).
Regarding claim 19, Höglund discloses the medical instrument according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the through holes provided in the strap portion are arranged in a ladder shape (Figure 6-8; Paragraph 0042), and penetrate from the outer surface to the inner surface in the strap portion (Figure 6-8; Paragraph 0042) but fails to explicitly disclose the through holes have a notch each, and the notch is placed at a lateral portion of each of the through holes.
However, Jafari is directed to a securement device and teaches a through hole (60) with a notch (58) and the notch is placed at a lateral portion of each of the through holes (Figure 6A-B; Paragraph 0067).
It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Höglund with the teachings of Jafari by incorporating the through holes have a notch each, and the notch is placed at a lateral portion of each of the through holes in order to allow lateral movement of a suture or a tool such as a needle into the through hole (Jafari Paragraph 0067).
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 ZEHRA JAFFRI whose telephone number is (571)272-7738. The examiner can normally be reached 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, DARWIN EREZO can be reached on (571) 272-4695. 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.
/Z.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/BROOKE LABRANCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771