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, and 9 are amended, claims 2 and 4-5 were canceled previously. Claims 1, 3, and 6-11 are now pending examination.
The rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to claim 9 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/20/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner agrees the added limitations, at least including the limitation “each pair of binding projections is formed in a mirror symmetry with respect to a central axis of the wire main-body” overcome the previous rejection as written. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yun in view of Odermatt, Pieri, and Lee.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (WO 2016167571 A1) (in text citations correspond with attached Espacenet translation) in view of Odermatt et al. (US 20110282384 A1) in view of Pieri (GB2562726) (previously of record) and in view of Lee (US 20110270304 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yun discloses a lifting thread, comprising:
a wire main-body (30) formed in a single straight line-like shape (Figure 1; line 141-144);
a lifting part (100) including thorn projections (110) formed on an outer circumferential surface of the wire main-body (Figure 1, 3; line 233-239), wherein each thorn projection of the thorn projections is circumferentially displaced from an adjacent thorn projection by a certain angle such that
a second thorn projection (any 110 on the right side of 30) of the thorn projections is formed to protrude toward a lower right direction based on the cross-section of the wire main-body from the outer circumferential surface (Figure 1; line 233-239), and
a third thorn projection (any 110 on the left side of 30) of the thorn projections is formed to protrude toward a lower left direction based on the cross-section of the wire main-body from the outer circumferential surface (Figure 1; line 233-239), whereby the thorn projections are arranged in a spiral direction around the wire main-body (Figure 1; line 233-239); and
the second thorn projection, and the third thorn projection are spaced apart from each other at a regular interval along a longitudinal direction of the wire main-body (Yun states “the grip cogs are arranged alternately from one side to the other with a predetermined longitudinal interval”, thus the thorn projections are spaced apart from each other at a regular interval along a longitudinal direction of the wire.) (Figure 5; lines 233-239);
a fixed part (200) including binding projections (210) integrally formed on the outer circumferential surface of the wire main-body (Figure 1, 4; line 226-232), wherein the binding projections include a plurality of pairs (211+213, 212+214) of binding projections (Figure 4; line 326-328).
Yun fails to explicitly disclose a first thorn projection of the thorn projections is formed to protrude toward an upper direction based on a cross-section of the wire main-body from the outer circumferential surface; the first thorn projection, the second thorn projection, and the third thorn projection are spaced apart from each other at a regular interval along a longitudinal direction of the wire main-body; and binding projections having a T-like shape, wherein the binding projections include a plurality of pairs of binding projections of which each pair of binding projections is formed in a mirror symmetry with respect to a central axis of the wire main-body.
However, Odermatt is directed to a barbed suture and teaches a suture with projections (340-345) formed on an outer circumferential surface of the wire main-body (300) (Figure 3A-B; Paragraph 0078), wherein each thorn projection of the thorn projections is circumferentially displaced from an adjacent thorn projection by a certain angle such that a first thorn projection (340) of the thorn projections is formed to protrude toward an upper direction based on a cross-section of the wire main-body from the outer circumferential surface (Figure 3A-B; Paragraph 0034; 0078), a second thorn projection (342) of the thorn projections is formed to protrude toward a lower right direction based on the cross-section of the wire main-body from the outer circumferential surface (Figure 3A-B; Paragraph 0034; 0078), a third thorn projection (344) of the thorn projections is formed to protrude toward a lower left direction based on the cross-section of the wire main-body from the outer circumferential surface (Figure 3A-B; Paragraph 0034; 0078), and the first thorn projection, the second thorn projection, and the third thorn projection are spaced apart from each other at a regular interval along a longitudinal direction of the wire main-body (Figure 3A-B; Paragraph 0034; 0078), whereby the thorn projections are arranged in a spiral direction around the wire main-body (Figure 3A-B; Paragraph 0034).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Yun such that three projections are placed around the suture at intervals of 120 degrees, as taught by Odermatt, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to barbed sutures. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yun with the teachings of Odermatt by incorporating three projections are placed around the suture at intervals of 120 degrees as described by the claimed invention in order to enhance adhesion of the barbs in the tissue (Odermatt Paragraph 0089).
Additionally, Pieri is directed to a tissue gripping device and teaches binding projections (12) having a T-like shape (Figure 3; Page 4, lines 16-17).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Yun and Odermatt such that the binding projections have a T-like shape, as taught by Pieri, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to tissue gripping 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 Yun and Odermatt with the teachings of Pieri by incorporating the outward-facing binding projections having a T-like shape in order to maximize tissue adhesion (Pieri Page 4, line 16-17).
Furthermore, Lee is directed to a barbed implant (200) and teaches wherein the binding projections (202) include a plurality of pairs (opposing 202s) of binding projections of which each pair of binding projections is formed in a mirror symmetry with respect to a central axis of the wire main-body (Figure 5B, 6; Paragraph 0011; 0051).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Yun, Odermatt, and Pieri such that each pair of binding projections is formed in a mirror symmetry with respect to a central axis of the wire main-body, as taught by Lee, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to barbed surgical implants. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yun, Odermatt, and Pieri with the teachings of Lee by incorporating each pair of binding projections is formed in a mirror symmetry with respect to a central axis of the wire main-body in order to gather soft tissues of the skin or to stretch epidermal tissues (Lee Paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 3, Yun further discloses wherein the thorn projections are integrally formed on the outer circumferential surface of the wire main- body and configured to protrude to incline from the outer circumferential surface of the wire main-body into a direction of one side (Figure 1, 3; line 233-239).
Regarding claim 6, Yun further discloses wherein said each pair of binding projections is arranged in a spiral direction on the outer circumferential surface of the wire main-body (Figure 1), wherein said each pair of binding projections is circumferentially displaced from an adjacent pair of binding projections by a certain angle such that a first pair (211+213) of binding projections of the plurality of pairs of binding projections is formed to protrude upward and downward directions based on the cross-section of the wire main-body and a second pair (212+214) of binding projections of the plurality of pairs of binding projections is formed to protrude left and right directions based on the cross-section of the wire main-body, and the first pair of binding projections and the second pair of binding projections are formed to be spaced apart from each other at fixed intervals (Figure 1; line 247-252).
Regarding claim 7, Yun further discloses wherein the thorn projections are elastic, and configured to pull a ligament extending from a lower portion of the skin, or a fibrous component for lifting (line 115-118). (line 115-118 discloses the cogs 110 are formed from a flexible support member, i.e., elastic. Further, "[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, thus the thorn projections are fully capable to pull a ligament or a fibrous component for lifting).
Regarding claim 8, Yun further discloses wherein the binding projections are elastic, and are configured to be fixed to the skin (line 329-334). ("[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, thus the binding projections are fully capable to be fixed to the skin).
Regarding claim 9, the claimed phrase “wherein on the outer circumferential surface of the wire main-body, the thorned projections are formed in such a manner as to cut outer frames at a fixed angle with the outer circumferential surface of the wire main-body as a standard” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, the phrase will be examined as ”the thorn projections are formed at a fixed angle with the surface of the wire main-body as a standard”, which is further disclosed by Yun (Figure 1; line 63-66). As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 10, Pieri further teaches wherein each of the binding projections has a head part of comprising four corners which are rounded in order to prevent a ligament or a fibrous component from being damaged (Figure 3, 7th embodiment; Page 4, lines 16-17).
Regarding claim 11, Pieri further teaches wherein each of the binding projections has a head part which is formed to have a half-moon shape (Figure 3, 10th embodiment; Page 4, lines 16-17).
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
/KATHERINE H SCHWIKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771