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 response to the amendment filed on 3/23/2026, claims 1-11, 13 have been canceled, and claims 12, 14-24 and newly added claims 25-28 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments obviate the previous claim objections and 35 U.S.C 112 rejections and those objections and rejections are hereby withdrawn. Applicant indicated specification amendments were filed to amend [0038]. However, the 13 pages of the response filed 3/23/2026 do not contain the amended and clean specification as indicated by Applicant and thus the specification objection is maintained below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/23/2026 with respect to Dreyfuss et al (US 2016/0374662) and Armington et al (WO 2017/210659) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Dreyfuss et al fails to disclose 4 out of the 6 limitations and specifically Armington does not disclose a “single tucked tail” as the portion of first free end (520) is cut away at point (528), leaving the remainder of second end (518) as a single suture strand that does not include both the first free end of the suture and the second free end of the suture. However, it is the Examiner’s position that the claim does not require the first free end to extend an entirety or to the tip of the second free end in the tucking step. This is not required until newly added dependent claim 26. The tail of Armington et al is partially tucked up to the point as annotated by Applicant in page 12 of the response and therefore meets the limitations of being a single, tucked tail having a tucked tail free end. Nonetheless, Dreyfuss et al in view of Armington et al fails to disclose the fixed loop immediately adjacent to the second location of the finger trap and therefore claim 1 is indicated as allowable below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “fixed loop 40” in [0038] should instead recite - - fixed loop 36 - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 28 recites “the tucked tail free end of the single, tucked tail extends parallel and adjacent to the fixed loop”. However, this feature is neither shown or discussed by the original disclosure. As annotated in Applicant’s Fig. 12 below, the tucked tail free end (70) can be seen extending at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the fixed loop and is therefore not parallel to the fixed loop. Therefore, this limitation is considered new matter.
PNG
media_image1.png
410
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 14-27 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Dreyfuss et al (US 2016/0374662) in view of Armington et al (WO 2017/210659) discloses the invention substantially as detailed in the Office Action dated 10/24/2025. The prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed method of making a closed knotless suture tissue connecting construct comprising, inter alia, the fixed loop immediately adjacent to the second location of the finger trap region. Instead, the second location (as annotated in the Office Action dated 10/24/2025) of Dreyfuss et al is spaced a distance of loop (55a) from the fixed loop (15a) to allow loop (55a) to be disposed on and around tissue (95) for tightening ([0044]). Therefore, in view of the prior art and its deficiencies, Applicant’s invention is rendered novel and non-obvious, and thus, is allowable as claimed.
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 KATHERINE M SHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5620. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 8-5 EST.
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.
/KATHERINE M SHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771