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 .
Examiner’s note:
The Examiner attempted to reach out to Applicant’s representatives, and left detailed voicemails, on 2/18, 2/24, 2/26, and 3/3 for the purpose of suggesting an Examiner’s amendment that would put the claims in condition for allowance. However, no reply from Applicant’s representatives had been received.
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to the applicant’s communication filed 11/24/2025.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1 – 4 are pending in the application.
Claims 1 – 4 are amended.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreyfuss et al (US 2013/0023928 A1) (herein referred to as Dreyfuss ‘928) (previously cited), and in view of Norton (US 2013/0190819 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Dreyfuss ‘928 discloses a knotless instability suture anchor construct (construct 40) (abstract, paragraph [0035 – 0038], and Fig. 10), comprising:
an anchor (fixation device 62) (paragraph [0038] and Fig. 10);
a length of suture material (construct 40; designated in annotated Fig. 10), the suture material having a loop strand (see annotated Fig. 10) having a central longitudinal axis extending along the length thereof from a first end to a second end thereof and terminating at the first end and a post strand terminating at the second end (see annotated Fig. 10); and
a splice loop (flexible loop 45; formed by splice 41; designated in annotated Fig. 10) formed by the first end, wherein the splice loop is formed by a length of the loop strand extending into an interior of the loop strand through a first aperture (see annotated Fig. 10), the length of the loop strand extending parallel to and coaxially along the central longitudinal axis and along the length of the loop strand while within the interior of the loop strand (see annotated Fig. 10), and extending back outside of the interior of the loop strand through a second aperture (see annotated Fig. 10), wherein the first and second apertures are on the same side of the loop strand and the first end extends outside the second aperture (see annotated Fig. 10), wherein the splice loop is configured to decrease in diameter / perimeter from a first size to a second, smaller size, via a force acting on the first end away from the splice loop (paragraph [0034]) (Examiner’s note: when a pulling force is acting on the first end, the splice loop will decrease in diameter / perimeter from a first size to a smaller second size), wherein the splice loop has no component of the knotless instability suture construct disposed fully axially around a portion of the central longitudinal axis of the splice loop (Fig. 10).
However, Dreyfuss ‘982 is silent regarding (i) an all-suture anchor. With respect to (i), Dreyfuss ‘982 states in paragraph [0046] that the fixation device 62, can be any fixation element that allows attachment of the knotless suture construct to bone; therefore, the type of fixation device / anchor is not critical to the operation of the device of Dreyfuss ‘982.
As to the above, Norton teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a knotless instability all-suture anchor construct (knotless suture anchor device 10) comprising an all-suture anchor (anchor 30) (abstract, paragraphs [0053 – 0055], and Fig. 1C).
It should be understood that Dreyfuss ‘982 and Norton are known references in the art that teach knotless suture constructs (abstract, paragraph [0035 – 0038], and Fig. 10 – Dreyfuss ‘982 ; abstract, paragraphs [0053 – 0055], and Fig. 1C – Norton); and the Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have substituted one anchor for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and resulted in the modified device of Dreyfuss ‘982 with the all-suture anchor of Norton being able to function as intended to properly anchor the knotless instability construct to the bone since Dreyfuss ‘982 contemplates wherein alternate anchors would work equally well as the fixation device 62. The examiner notes the rejection above is based on KSR int’l Co. V. Teleflex inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), rational B, outlined in MPEP 2143.
Annotated Figure 10 of Dreyfuss ‘982
PNG
media_image1.png
754
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above, the combination of Dreyfuss ‘982 and Norton makes obvious the device of claim 1. Additionally, Dreyfuss ‘928 further discloses a sliding construct (eyelet 42) formed by the first end and the second end (Examiner’s note: the eyelet 42 can slide along the free end 44 of the construct 40; furthermore, as stated in paragraph [0034] the eyelet is formed by a splicing, and as shown in Fig. 10 is formed from the first and second ends).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreyfuss et al (US 2013/0023928 A1) (herein referred to as Dreyfuss ‘928) in view of Norton (US 2013/0190819 A1) (previously cited) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sengun et al (US 2017/0202658 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above, the combination of Dreyfuss ‘982 and Norton teaches the suture anchor of claim 2 above.
However, the combination of Dreyfuss ‘982 and Norton is silent regarding (i) wherein the sliding construct is selected from the group consisting of a single friction hitch.
As to the above, Sengun teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a suture anchor comprising a suture (suture filament 60) and a sliding construct (sliding portion 70 / knot 72) formed by the first and second ends (paragraphs [0059 – 0060] and Fig. 3A), wherein the sliding construct consists of a friction hitch (Buntline hitch) (paragraph [0059]). Furthermore, Sengun notes that any number of sliding knots can be used to couple the two ends of the suture (paragraph [0059]).
It should be understood that Dreyfuss ‘982 and Sengun are known references in the art that teach a suture anchor comprising a sliding construct (abstract, paragraphs [0035 – 0038], and Fig. 10 – Dreyfuss ‘982 ; abstract and paragraph [0059] – Sengun); and the Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have substituted one sliding construct for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and resulted in the modified anchor of Dreyfuss ‘982 being able to function as intended to properly maintain its desired diameter / shape / amount of tension. The examiner notes the rejection above is based on KSR int’l Co. V. Teleflex inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), rational B, outlined in MPEP 2143.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following claims 1 and 2 drafted by the Examiner and considered to distinguish patentably over the art of record in this application, are presented to applicant for consideration:
1. (currently amended) A knotless instability all-suture anchor construct, comprising:
an all-suture anchor;
a length of suture material connected to the all-suture anchor, the suture material having a loop strand having a central longitudinal axis extending along the length thereof from a first end to a second end thereof and terminating at the first end and a post strand terminating at the second end; and
a splice loop formed by the first end, wherein the splice loop is formed by a length of the loop strand extending into an interior of the loop strand through a first aperture, the length of the loop strand extending parallel to and coaxially along the central longitudinal axis and along the length of the loop strand while within the interior of the loop strand, and extending back outside of the interior of the loop strand through a second aperture, wherein the first and second apertures are on the same side of the loop strand and the first end extends outside the second aperture, wherein the splice loop is configured to decrease in diameter via a force acting on the first end away from the splice loop, wherein the splice loop has no component of the knotless instability suture all suture anchor construct disposed fully axially around a portion of the central longitudinal axis of the splice loop;
a sliding construct forming a positioning loop with a perimeter defined at least in part by the length of the suture material woven through the all-suture anchor.
2. The all-suture anchor construct of claim 1, further comprising the
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/24/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under Dreyfuss and, separately, Dreyfuss ‘982 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 rejections were withdrawn because Dreyfuss does not teach wherein the splice loop has no component of the knotless instability suture construct disposed fully axially around a portion of the splice loop and Dreyfuss ‘982 does not teach an all-suture anchor. It is noted that a new rejection has been made over Dreyfuss ‘982 and Norton. The teachings of Norton are relied upon for teaching the newly added limitations as discussed above.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Restaino whose telephone number is (571)272-4748. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at 571-272-7134. 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.
/Andrew Restaino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771