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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim (s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1 6 , 20 , 21 , 22, 28 , & 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" US 2010/0256443 hereinafter Griguol in view of US 2010/0137679 hereinafter Lashinski . In regards to Claim 1 6 : Griguol teaches A human implant arrangement for permanently constricting a human tissue structure in a longitudinal direction ( Griguol , Figure 1) , the human implant arrangement comprising: a longitudinal first anchoring part comprising lateral self-anchoring elements having a first longitudinal anchoring orientation ( Griguol , Figure 1 Item 3) ; a connection part which does not comprise anchoring elements ( Griguol , Figure 1 Item 2) ; and a longitudinal second anchoring part which is connected in a longitudinal orientation to the longitudinal first anchoring part via the connection part, the longitudinal second anchoring part comprising lateral self-anchoring elements having a second longitudinal anchoring orientation which is reverse to the first longitudinal anchoring orientation ( Griguol , Figure 1 Item 3; the two structures on opposing sides of the center connecting part utilize the structure described in claim) . Griguol does not teach wherein a total length of the human implant arrangement is not larger than 40 mm. Lashinski teaches wherein. a total length of the human implant arrangement is not larger than 40 mm ( Lashinski , Figure 61B; Paragraph 0359; the conversion of the preferred length 0.125 inches to mm is 3.175mm) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add length parameters taught in Lashinski to the Micro sling taught in Griguol , the motivation being to provide a smaller device to allow for a less recovery intensive surgery for the patient . In regards to Claim 20: A modified Griguol teaches t he human implant arrangement further comprising: a releasable application tool ( 33 , Figure 6 Item 20) , wherein, the longitudinal first anchoring part further comprises a free longitudinal end which comprises an application tool engagement structure which is configured to engage with the releasable application tool ( Griguol , Figure s 1 & 7 Items 6 & 4) , and only the free longitudinal end of the longitudinal first anchoring part is provided with the application tool engagement structure ( Griguol , Figures 1 & 7 Items 6 & 4) In regards to Claim 21: A modified Griguol teaches wherein each of the longitudinal first anchoring part, the longitudinal second anchoring part, and the connection part are defined by one single integral plastic body ( Griguol , Paragraph 0064) . In the alternative, forming components integrally, where, as here, they have been disclosed as fastened/joined in conventional way is considered to be obvious. To be non-obvious, “there is a requirement that the unification or integration involve more than mechanical skill.”(In re Lockhart, 90 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1951) citing to In re Murray, 19 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 739, 53 F.2d 541). Furthermore, it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte , 177 USPQ 326. See MPEP 2144.V.B. In regards to Claim 22: a modified Griguol teaches wherein, the connection part has a longitudinal length ( Griguol , Paragraph 0061) , each of the longitudinal first anchoring part and the longitudinal second anchoring part have a longitudinal length ( Griguol , Paragraph 0068) , and the longitudinal length of the connection part is less than the longitudinal length of each of the longitudinal first anchoring part and the longitudinal second anchoring part ( Griguol Figure 1 Items 2 & 3) . In regards to claim 28: A modified Griguol teaches claim 16, and wherein, the longitudinal first anchoring part further comprises a center body which holds the lateral self-anchoring elements of the longitudinal first anchoring part ( Griguol , Figure 1 Item s 7 & 30) , the longitudinal second anchoring part further comprises a center body which holds the lateral self-anchoring elements of the longitudinal second anchoring part ( Griguol , Figure 1 Items 7 & 30) , a total lateral extension of the human implant arrangement in a plane of the lateral self- anchoring elements is not larger than 10 mm ( Griguol , Paragraph 0034) , and the total lateral extension is more than 300 % of a lateral thickness of each center body ( Griguol , Paragraphs 0031 & 0034; thickness of the elongated part Vs. the width of the tails including the thorns) . In regards to Claim 32: a modified Griguol teaches claim 16, and wherein the lateral self-anchoring elements of the longitudinal second anchoring part are arranged to lie in at least two different self-anchoring element planes ( Lashinski , Figure 16B Item 200) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the two different self-anchoring planes taught by Lashinski to the micro sling taught by Griguol , the motivation being to allow for a more versatile anchoring structure to better retain the device in the body . Claim (s) 17 , 18 , 19 , & 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Griguol in view of Lashinski in further view of US 2009/0012561 hereinafter Johnstone . In regards to Claim 17: A modified Griguol teaches all of claim 16, but does not teach wherein the longitudinal second anchoring part further comprises a removable application sleeve which laterally covers each of the lateral self-anchoring elements of the longitudinal second anchoring part. Johnstone teaches wherein the longitudinal second anchoring part further comprises a removable application sleeve which laterally covers each of the lateral self- anchoring elements of the longitudinal second anchoring part (Johnstone, Paragraph 0048; Figure 6 item 10) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the delivery sleeve taught in Johnstone to the micro sling taught in Griguol , the motivation being to provide a sterile environment for the implant to be stored in before it is installed. In regards to Claim 18: A modified Griguol teaches a sleeve retainer element (Johnstone, Paragraph 28) , wherein, the removable application sleeve (Johnstone, Figure 6 Item 10) is releasably held by the sleeve retainer element at one of the longitudinal first anchoring part, the longitudinal second anchoring part, and the connection part ( Griguol , Figure 1 & 7 Item 6) In regards to Claim 19: A modified Griguol teaches wherein the removable application sleeve is configured to be removable in a longitudinal direction when released (Johnstone, Paragraph 0048; “The delivery sleeve can be withdrawn over the suture”; Figure 5) . Claim (s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 23 & 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Griguol in view of Lashinski in further view of US 2004/0144395 hereinafter Evans . In regards to Claim 23: A modified Griguol teaches claim 1 6 , but does not teach wherein, the connection part has a longitudinal length, the human implant arrangement has a total longitudinal length, and the longitudinal length of the connection part is less than 1/4 of the total longitudinal length of the human implant arrangement. Evans teaches wherein, the connection part has a longitudinal length, the human implant arrangement has a total longitudinal length, and the longitudinal length of the connection part is less than 1/4 of the total longitudinal length of the human implant arrangement (Evans, Figure 20D item 81) (Evans, Paragraph 0211) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add the ratio of part length as taught in Evans to the Micro Sling found in Griguol , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is length which achieves the recognized result of ensuring the device is completely secured in place to support the sling therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie , 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch , 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In regards to Claim 29: A modified Griguol teaches all of claim 16, but does not teach wherein, the connection part has a lateral extension, each of the lateral self-anchoring elements of the longitudinal first anchoring part and the longitudinal second anchoring part have a lateral extension, and the lateral extension of the connection part is not larger than the lateral extension of the self- anchoring elements of the longitudinal first anchoring part and the longitudinal second anchoring part. Evans teaches wherein, the connection part has a lateral extension (Evans, Figure 20D Item 81 ) , each of the lateral self-anchoring elements of the longitudinal first anchoring part and the longitudinal second anchoring part have a lateral extension (Evans, Figure 20D Items 83a & 83b) , and the lateral extension of the connection part is not larger than the lateral extension of the self- anchoring elements of the longitudinal first anchoring part and the longitudinal second anchoring part (Evans, Figure 20D Items 81 Vs. 83a & 83b) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the connection part of Evans to the micro sling taught by Griguol , the motivation being to provide a connection part that is better supported by having a greater ratio of anchored material to visible material. Claim (s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Griguol in view of Lashinski in further view of US 2006/00 58578 hereinafter Browning . In regards to Claim 24: a Modified Griguol teaches claim 16: but does not teach wherein, the connection part comprises a ring structure which lies in a ring plane, the lateral self-anchoring elements of each of the longitudinal first anchoring part and the longitudinal second anchoring part lie in a plane, and the ring plane of the ring structure lies in the plane of the lateral self-anchoring elements of each of the longitudinal first anchoring part and the longitudinal second anchoring part. Browning teaches wherein, the connection part comprises a ring structure which lies in a ring plane, the lateral self-anchoring elements of each of the longitudinal first anchoring part and the longitudinal second anchoring part lie in a plane (Browning, Figure 3C Item 7) , and the ring plane of the ring structure lies in the plane of the lateral self-anchoring elements of each of the longitudinal first anchoring part and the longitudinal second anchoring part (Browning, Figure 3C Item 7 Vs I tem 6; Ring Vs Barbs orientation ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the ring structure on the ring plane described by Browning to the micro sling described by a modified Griguol , the motivation being to provide a retaining structure to tie suture thread to the anchor effectively. Claim (s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 25 & 26 , 30 & 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Griguol in v ie w of Lashinski in further view of US 2003/0074021 hereinafter Morriss . In regards to Claim 25: A modified Griguol teaches claim 1, but does not teach wherein the connection part comprises a length adjusting device which is configured to adjust a longitudinal distance between the longitudinal first anchoring part and the longitudinal second anchoring part. Morriss teaches wherein the connection part comprises a length adjusting device which is configured to adjust a longitudinal distance between the longitudinal first anchoring part and the longitudinal second anchoring part (Morriss, Figure 39C Item 1714; Paragraph 0216) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the adjustable leash taught in Morriss to the micro leash taught by Griguol , the motivation being to allow for the device to be utilized in a greater amount of space dimensions. In regards to Claim 26: A modified Griguol teaches all of claim 25, and wherein the length adjusting device comprises a unidirectional snap-in structure (Morriss, Paragraph 0212) . In regards to Claim 30: A modified Griguol teaches claim 16, but does not teach wherein the longitudinal second anchoring part further comprises a holder element which is configured to hold at least one separate anchoring module in place . Morriss teaches wherein the longitudinal second anchoring part further comprises a holder element which is configured to hold at least one separate anchoring module in place (Morriss, Figure 38A & 38B Item 1705 ) (Morriss, Paragraphs 212; Leash is read as a holding stick is configured to withstand tensile loads generated by tissue) (Morriss, Paragraph 216; one set of barbs (backing) is adjustably releasable along leash) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the adjustable leash taught by Morriss to the micro sling taught by Griguol , the motivation being to provide an extension to the second anchoring element to allow for the device to be utilized in a wider range of circumstances . In regards to Claim 31: A modified Griguol teaches all of claims 16 & 30, and wherein the holder element is a holding stick (Morriss, Figure 38A & 38B Item 1705 ) (Morriss, Paragraphs 212; Leash is read as a holding stick is configured to withstand tensile loads generated by tissue) . Claim (s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Griguol in view of Lashinski in further view of US 2007/0156175 hereinafter Weadock . In regards to Claim 27: a modified Griguol teaches claim 16, but does not teach wherein each of the lateral self-anchoring elements of each of the longitudinal first anchoring part and the longitudinal second anchoring part have an anchor angle which is less than 55. Weadock teaches wherein each of the lateral self-anchoring elements of each of the longitudinal first anchoring part and the longitudinal second anchoring part have an anchor angle which is less than 55 ( Weadock , Paragraph 0040) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add the barb/thorn angle taught by Weadock to the micro sling taught by Griguol , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is angle which achieves the recognized result of grabbing and locking the barbs into the desired space therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie , 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch , 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NOE R DIETZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1135 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 8am - 5pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Alexander Valvis can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)-272-4233 . 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. /N.R.D./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791