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 .
The first inventor to file provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ) apply to any application for patent, and to any patent issuing thereon, that contains or contained at any time—
(A) a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013 wherein the effective filing date is:
(i) if subparagraph (ii) does not apply, the actual filing date of the patent or the application for the patent containing a claim to the invention; or
(ii) the filing date of the earliest application for which the patent or application is entitled, as to such invention, to a right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119, 365(a), or 365(b) or to the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c); or
(B) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120 , 121, or 365(c), to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time a claim as defined in paragraph (A), above.
Status of the Claims
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-24 is/are pending. Claim(s) 5-7 and 13-24 is/are withdrawn. Claim(s) 8-9 is/are canceled.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/28/2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of claims 1 and 3-4 has/have been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/28/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 8-12 has/have been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 10-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The change in rejection was necessitated by Applicant’s amendments beyond incorporation of former claims 8 and 9.
Product By Process
The Examiner recognizes claim 1 as a "product-by-process" claim. Even 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 (see MPEP 2113).
As a product claim, Examiner has determined claim 1 requires the device to comprise the following structural elements in addition to those in the claims from which they depend.
Claim 1: a first device with a first leg element with a first end, a first loop adjacent the first end, a second device having its own second leg element with a first end, a second loop adjacent the respective first end, and the first device and the second device slidably connected to each other.
In the prior art rejection in this Office action, Examiner considers claim 1 to be met when a reference teaches these structural limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-4, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmid, et al (Schmid) (US 2006/0020324 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Schmid teaches a device (e.g. Figures 1, 4B), comprising:
a first device (e.g. annotated Figure 4B below) comprising:
a first leg element (e.g. annotated Figure 4B below, in labeled box) made by three dimensional printing (this is a product-by-process limitation, discussed supra), the first leg element having a first end (e.g. annotated Figure 4B below, end of the first leg element to the right, as oriented herein) at a first end of a longitudinal member (e.g. annotated Figure 4B, this longitudinal member is the vertical bar of the first leg element, where the longitudinal member’s first end is one of the top or bottom, as oriented herein, of this longitudinal member), and
a first loop (e.g. annotated Figure 4B below) made by three dimensional printing (this is a product-by-process limitation, discussed supra) and attached to the first end of the first leg element (e.g. annotated Figure 4B below);
a second device (e.g. annotated Figure 4B below) comprising:
a second leg element (e.g. annotated Figure 4B below) made by three dimensional printing (this is a product-by-process limitation, discussed supra), the second leg element having a second end (e.g. annotated Figure 4B below, end of the second leg element to the left, as oriented herein) at a second end of a longitudinal member (e.g. annotated Figure 4B, this longitudinal member is the vertical bar of the second leg element, where the longitudinal member’s second end is one of the top or bottom, as oriented herein, of this longitudinal member); and
a second loop made by three dimensional printing (this is a product-by-process limitation, discussed supra) and attached adjacent to the second end of the second leg element (e.g. annotated Figure 4B below); and
the first loop slidably wrapped around [the] second leg element and the second loop slidably wrapped around the first leg element (e.g. annotated Figure 4B below), the first device and the second device configured to displace linearly and incline angularly with respect to each other using the first loop and the second loop (e.g. Figures 4A, 4B).
PNG
media_image1.png
641
851
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4B, Schmid
Regarding Claim 3, at least one of the first or second leg element or the first or second loops is made of a photo-curable polymer (e.g. [0105], PLA).
Regarding Claim 4, there is a drug in at least one of the first or second leg element or the first or second loops (e.g. [0140], [0142]).
Regarding Claim 10, the first device and the second device are connected in a line (e.g. Figure 4B).
Regarding Claim 11, a plurality of devices including the first device and the second device are connected together in pairs to each other (e.g. Figures 1, 4B).
Regarding Claim 12, a plurality of devices including the first device and the second device are connected together in a circuit (e.g. Figure 1).
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 LESLIE A LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7044. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM, MST.
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, THOMAS BARRETT can be reached at (571)272-4746. 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.
/LESLIE A LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 7/15/2026
Prosecution Insights