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 .
This is in response to the election/restriction response filed on 12/21/2025. Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 1 and 16 are independent. Claims 16 and 17 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species D (Figures 3A-3D) in the reply filed on 12/21/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/21/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2, “at at least” should be amended to --at least--.
Claim 5, line 2, “at at least” should be amended to --at least--.
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.
Currently, none of the claim limitations are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-9 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arts et al. (US Pub. No.: 2021/0231315).
Regarding claims 1-9 and 11-15, Arts discloses [claim 1] an arrangement, comprising: a plurality of mesh tubes (54a-54d, Figs. 2A and 2B) arranged in parallel and extending along an axial direction (Figs. 2A and 2B), each mesh tube of the plurality of mesh tubes having a mesh tube length in the axial direction (Fig. 2B); and a first mesh sheet (58, Figs. 2A and 2B) having a first surface (top surface 67 with the surface around the holes 74), wherein the plurality of mesh tubes is disposed on the first surface (Figs. 2A and 2B);
[claim 2] wherein each mesh tube is affixed to at least one adjacent mesh tube at least one respective connection point (each mesh tube is affixed to at least one adjacent mesh tube at least one respective connection point, such as the through the angled fasteners / connection members 80, such as 80a1, 80a2 on 60, Fig. 2B and Para. [0077]);
[claim 3] at least one connecting thread passing through one or more of the connection points (Para. [0020], stitches);
[claim 4] wherein each connection point comprises a suture (stitches, Para. [0020]);
[claim 5] wherein the plurality of mesh tubes is affixed to the first surface at least one anchor point (the plurality of mesh tubes is indirectly affixed to the first surface at least one anchor point through the angled fasteners / connection members 80, such as 80a1, 80a2 on 60, Fig. 2B and Para. [0077]);
[claim 6] wherein the at least one anchor point comprises a suture or a connecting thread ((stitches, Para. [0020]);
[claim 7] wherein each mesh tube comprises a rolled mesh sheet (Fig. 2B and Para. [0098], the overlapped regions of the rolled mesh are fixed to each other);
[claim 8] wherein, for each rolled mesh sheet, two edges thereof are joined together, at least partially, to form the mesh tube (Fig. 2B and Para. [0098]);
[claim 9] wherein the first mesh sheet has an approximately rectangular shape having a first mesh sheet length extending in the axial direction and a first mesh sheet width extending in a radial direction (Fig. 2B);
[claim 11] each mesh tube length is approximately equal (Fig. 2A and 2B);
[claim 12] wherein each mesh tube has one of a generally circular cross-section along the mesh tube length (Figs. 2A and 2B);
[claim 13] wherein the plurality of mesh tubes is co-planar with the first surface (the plurality of mesh tubes is co-planar with the first surface along the surface of the mesh around the holes 74);
[claim 14] a second mesh sheet (60, Fig. 2B and Para. [0090]) having a second surface (bottom surface with the surface surrounding holes 78, Fig. 2B) which is disposed on the plurality of mesh tubes such that the second surface contacts the plurality of mesh tubes at least in part (Figs. 2A an 2B);
[claim 15] wherein the second surface is co-planar with the first surface (Figs. 2A and 2B).
Claim(s) 1, 9, 10, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Caballero (US Pub. No.: 2013/0282033).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 10, 11, and 13, Caballero discloses [claim 1] an arrangement, comprising: a plurality of mesh tubes (the folds of the mesh sheet around 26 and 28 forms the mesh tube, Figs. 1E and 1I) arranged in parallel and extending along an axial direction (Figs. 1E and 1I), each mesh tube of the plurality of mesh tubes having a mesh tube length in the axial direction (Figs. 1E and 1I); and a first mesh sheet (the flat portion of 22 is the mesh sheet, Fig. 1) having a first surface (the surface with the mesh folds/tubes), wherein the plurality of mesh tubes is disposed on the first surface (Fig. 1);
PNG
media_image1.png
454
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[claim 9] wherein the first mesh sheet has an approximately rectangular shape having a first mesh sheet length extending in the axial direction and a first mesh sheet width extending in a radial direction (Fig. 1I);
[claim 10] wherein each mesh tube length is approximately equal to the first mesh sheet length (Figs. 1E and 1I);
[claim 11] each mesh tube length is approximately equal (Figs. 1E and 1I);
[claim 13] wherein the plurality of mesh tubes is co-planar with the first surface (Figs. 1E and 1I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20020116070 A1 Amara, Ryan A. et al. discloses a pile mesh prosthesis.
US 20030181988 A1 Rousseau, Robert A. discloses a layered hernial repair device.
US 20140350579 A1 Nagy; Attila discloses a hernia repair device comprising a tube and two mesh sheets.
US 4854316 A Davis; Emsley A. discloses a hernia repair device comprising a tube and two mesh sheets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING RUI OU whose telephone number is (571)270-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am -5:00pm.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at (571) 272-4696. 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.
/JING RUI OU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights