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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 04/15/2026. As directed by the amendment: claim 1 has been amended and claims 6 and 9-20 have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1-5 and 7-8 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, filed 04/15/2026, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The applicant’s amendment to the claims to remove claimed subject matter not shown in the drawings overcome the drawing objections. The drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, filed 04/15/2026, with respect to the U.S.C. 112(a) claim rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The applicant’s amendment to the claims to remove the previously claimed language that fails to comply with the written description requirement overcomes the rejection. The U.S.C 112(a) rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5, filed 04/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gaynor et al (US 20110092985 A1), herein referenced to as “Gaynor” have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The applicant has amended claim 1 to further recite “wherein the first aperture and the second aperture extend in a plane passing through and along the longitudinal axis of the flexible body… and an insertion tool with a fixation device attached to the insertion tool, and with the flexible body secured on a handle of the insertion tool”.
The examiner agrees that Gaynor does not explicitly disclose wherein the first aperture and the second aperture extend in a plane passing through and along the longitudinal axis of the flexible body.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5 and 7-8 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.
In Claim 1, the Applicant is required to clarify to what the claim is intended to be drawn to, i.e., either the surgical construct alone or the combination of the surgical construct, the insertion tool, and the fixation device. The Applicant sets forth the combination of the surgical construct and the insertion tool when describing “a flexible body with an elongated configuration… and an insertion tool with a fixation device attached to the insertion tool”, which is inconsistent with the preamble “A surgical construct for suture retention and finger protection”, that sets forth the subcombination of the surgical construct alone. Applicant is required to make the language of the claims consistent with the intent of the claims. It should also be noted that in considering the claims on the merits, the Examiner will consider the claims as drawn to the combination.
Claims 2-5 and 7-8 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 contain allowable subject matter on the merits as drawn to the combination, see 112(b) rejection above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious a surgical assembly for suture retention and finger protection, comprising, inter alia, a flexible body with an elongated configuration, a longitudinal axis, a proximal end, and a distal end; and a first aperture located at the proximal end, and a second apertured located at the distal end, wherein the first aperture and the second aperture extend in a plane passing through and along the longitudinal axis, wherein the flexible body between the first aperture and the second aperture is configured to rest on a ventral surface of a finger; and an insertion tool with a fixation device attached to the insertion tool and with the flexible body secured on a handle of the insertion tool so that at least one of the first aperture and the second aperture engages the handle of the insertion tool. Gaynor et al (US 20110092985 A1) teaches a surgical assembly for suture retention and finger protection, with a flexible body with a first proximal aperture and a second distal aperture, however, the apertures do not extend in a plane passing through and along the longitudinal axis of the flexible body, and furthermore, neither engage the handle of the insertion tool. Pfotenhauer et al (US 20200069298 A1) teaches a surgical assembly with a flexible body that attaches to a shaft on an insertion tool, but not the handle of an insertion tool, furthermore, the flexible does not teach the apertures extend in a plane passing through and along the longitudinal axis of the flexible body. Wong (US 5848928 A) teaches a finger protector device with an elongated flexible body with a first aperture at proximal end and a second aperture at a distal end with both apertures extending in a plane passing through and along the longitudinal axis of the flexible body, however it does not teach either aperture engaging the handle of the insertion tool or a fixation device attached to the insertion tool. Yamada (US 20100249510 A1) teaches a surgical assembly with a flexible body that has a first and second apertures at distal and proximal ends of the body, with the apertures extending in a plane passing through and along the longitudinal axis of the flexible body as the apertures engaging the shaft of an insertion tool, but not the handle of an assertion tool, additionally the apertures do not retain a flexible strand attached to the fixation device. Ryan et al (US 20100152613 A1) teaches a surgical assembly with a flexible body with first and second apertures, however the apertures are do not extend in a plane passing through and along the longitudinal axis of the flexible body, the apertures do engage a flexible strand attached to an insertion tool, but there is no fixation device. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify Gaynor to have the first or second aperture to engage the handle of an insertion tool, as Gaynor’s device has a separate aperture that attaches to the shaft of an insertion tool, even though the apertures would functionally be capable of doing such.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamada (US 20100249510 A1) teaches a surgical attachment device that attaches to a shaft of an endoscopic tool
Ryan et al (US 20100152613 A1) teaches a clip that attaches the handle of an endoscopic device
Wong (US 5848928 A) teaches a finger protector with apertures that extend in plane passing through and along the longitudinal axis of the device
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 RAIHAN R KHANDKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6174. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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 at 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.
RAIHAN R. KHANDKER
Examiner
Art Unit 3771
/RAIHAN R KHANDKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights