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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-20 and 23-25) in the reply filed on 6/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 21-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/24/2025.
Drawings
Figures 1-46 use shading, however, this shading reduces legibility. See CFR 1.84(m) which states “Shading. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. See paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color”. Additionally, the handwritten reference numbers are blurry and unclear in many figures.
Further, the drawings employee photographs (i.e., Figure 1-3, etc.). See CFR 1.84(b) which states Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 12-13, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caborn et al. (US 20110071549 A1) in view of Culbert et al. (US 20040106925 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Caborn discloses an implant system for stabilizing first and second bones ("[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.), comprising:
a stabilization implant, comprising:
a first bone anchor (10A) (Figure 4, 7-10, 25; Paragraph 0089) (although the anchors are designed to anchor meniscus, they are fully capable of anchoring in bone);
a second bone anchor (10B) (Figure 4, 7-10, 25; Paragraph 0089) (although the anchors are designed to anchor meniscus, they are fully capable of anchoring in bone); and
a flexible tether (15) extending between and coupling the first and second anchors (Figure 4-6; Paragraph 0089; 0093); and
an instrument (5) configured to deploy the implant across a portion of the first and second bones (Figure 1), comprising:
a handle portion (100) with a manually engageable adjustment member (110) movably coupled thereto (Figure 11; Paragraph 0106);
a longitudinally elongated insertion tube (20) extending from a front portion of the handle portion to a tip (95) and comprising a longitudinally elongated cavity (90) (Figure 1; Paragraph 0103; 106); and
a deployment portion (115+119) coupled with the adjustment member and engaged with a portion of the instrument (118) (Figure 11; Paragraph 0106), the deployment portion comprising a base portion (119) extending within the handle portion and a longitudinally elongated deployment rod portion (115) slidably received within the cavity of the insertion tube (Figure 11; Paragraph 0106),
wherein at least a portion of the first bone anchor is removably received within the cavity of the insertion tube at the tip thereof (Figure 4-6; Paragraph 0100), and
wherein movement of the adjustment member in a first direction adjusts the threaded engagement of the deployment portion with respect to the instrument to threadably drive the deployment rod portion longitudinally within the cavity of the insertion tube toward the tip thereof to force the first bone anchor out from the cavity (Paragraph 0106) (As the ratchet mechanism moves forward, the individual rungs of 110 and 118 that are engaged to each other move such that each rung is engaged with a consecutive rung in the opposite direction, thus would threaded to the next rung, and threadably drive the deployment rod).
Caborn fails to explicitly disclose a deployment portion threadably engaged with a portion of the instrument.
However, Culbert is directed to an anchor device and teaches a deployment portion (28) threadably coupled with a portion of the instrument (206) (Paragraph 0035), and further teaches a threaded engagement as an equivalent alternative of a ratchet mechanism, as both systems are complimentary locking structures (Paragraph 0035). Thus, the combination with Caborn would result in the deployment portion threadably engaged with a portion of the instrument.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., 962 F.3d 1373, 1379, 2020 USPQ2d 10706 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). "[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Regarding claim 12, Caborn further discloses wherein the first bone anchor comprises a first pair of longingly spaced tether apertures (40, 55) each extending through a thickness thereof between an engagement side and an outer side thereof (Figure 10A-C; Paragraph 0093), and wherein an intermediate portion of the tether extends through a first tether aperture of the first pair of tether apertures from the engagement side to the outer side, and then through a second tether aperture of the first pair of tether apertures from the outer side to the engagement side (Figure 10A-C; 25).
Regarding claim 13, Caborn further discloses wherein the second bone anchor comprises a second pair of tether apertures (40, 55) (Figure 10A-C; Paragraph 0093), and wherein a first end portion of the tether extends through a third tether aperture of the second pair of tether apertures, a second end portion of the tether extends through a fourth tether aperture of the second pair of tether apertures, and the intermediate portion of the tether extends between the first and second end portions of the tether (Figure 10A-C; 25).
Regarding claim 17, Caborn further discloses wherein the first bone anchor is longitudinally elongated (Paragraph 0090), and wherein the first bone anchor is longitudinally oriented with respect to the longitudinally elongated cavity of the insertion tube, and at least a portion of the first bone anchor along the longitudinal length thereof is removably received within a portion of the longitudinally elongated cavity of the insertion tube at the tip thereof (Figure 4-6; Paragraph 0100).
Regarding claim 18, Caborn further discloses wherein the instrument further comprises a tether retainer (120) comprising a pair of projections (lifted sides of 120 between which 15 is placed) with wing portions (either side of spool 120) and slot (area 15 is placed) between the wing portions, and wherein end portions of the tether wrap about the projections beneath the wing portions and pass through the slot at least once (Figure 13; Paragraph 0107; 0111).
Claim(s) 2-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caborn in view of DiVincenzo et al. (US 20180368893 A1).
Regarding claim 2-5, Caborn discloses the system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the deployment portion is threadably engaged with the portion of the instrument via the base portion being threadably engaged with an inner portion of the handle portion, wherein the base portion comprises external threads, and the inner portion of the handle portion comprises interior threads threadably mated with the external threads, wherein the base portion is rotatably and longitudinally slidably received with the handle portion, and wherein the adjustment member is rotationally fixedly coupled with the base portion, wherein the first direction is a rotational direction extending about a longitudinal axis, and wherein rotation of the adjustment member in the first direction rotates the base portion within the handle portion and threadably drives the base portion and the rod portion longitudinally toward the tip.
However, DiVincenzo is directed to an anchor delivery system and teaches wherein the deployment portion (102) is threadably engaged with the portion of the instrument (inner surface of handle) via the base portion (108) being threadably engaged with an inner portion of the handle portion (handle) (Figure 2A-B; Paragraph 0069), wherein the base portion comprises external threads (113), and the inner portion of the handle portion comprises interior threads threadably mated with the external threads (Figure 2A-B; Paragraph 0009; 0069), wherein the base portion is rotatably and longitudinally slidably received with the handle portion (Paragraph 0070), and wherein the adjustment member (120) is rotationally fixedly coupled with the base portion (Figure 2A-B; Paragraph 0069), wherein the first direction is a rotational direction extending about a longitudinal axis, and wherein rotation of the adjustment member in the first direction rotates the base portion within the handle portion and threadably drives the base portion and the rod portion longitudinally toward the tip (110) (Figure 2A; Paragraph 0069-70; 0072).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Caborn such that the deployment portion is threadably engaged with the portion of the instrument via the base portion being threadably engaged with an inner portion of the handle portion, wherein the base portion comprises external threads, and the inner portion of the handle portion comprises interior threads threadably mated with the external threads, wherein the base portion is rotatably and longitudinally slidably received with the handle portion, and wherein the adjustment member is rotationally fixedly coupled with the base portion, wherein the first direction is a rotational direction extending about a longitudinal axis, and wherein rotation of the adjustment member in the first direction rotates the base portion within the handle portion and threadably drives the base portion and the rod portion longitudinally toward the tip, as taught by DiVincenzo, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to anchor systems. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Caborn with the teachings of DiVincenzo by incorporating wherein the deployment portion is threadably engaged with the portion of the instrument via the base portion being threadably engaged with an inner portion of the handle portion, wherein the base portion comprises external threads, and the inner portion of the handle portion comprises interior threads threadably mated with the external threads, wherein the base portion is rotatably and longitudinally slidably received with the handle portion, and wherein the adjustment member is rotationally fixedly coupled with the base portion, wherein the first direction is a rotational direction extending about a longitudinal axis, and wherein rotation of the adjustment member in the first direction rotates the base portion within the handle portion and threadably drives the base portion and the rod portion longitudinally toward the tip in order to improve surgical efficiency and safety by providing more control for the movement of the deployment portion (DiVincenzo Paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 7, Caborn further discloses wherein the base portion is longitudinally slidably coupled with the adjustment member (Figure 13; Paragraph 0106).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caborn in view of DiVincenzo as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Hart et al. (US 20240180545 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Caborn as modified by DiVincenzo teaches the system of claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein the adjustment member is configured as a thumb wheel that extends within the handle portion and exterior to an outer surface of the handle portion.
However, Hart is directed to an anchor delivery system and teaches a thumb wheel (230) that extends within the handle portion (200) and exterior to an outer surface of the handle portion (Figure 9B; Paragraph 0166).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Caborn as modified by DiVincenzo to include a thumb wheel that extends within the handle portion and exterior to an outer surface of the handle portion, as taught by Hart, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to anchor systems. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Caborn as modified by DiVincenzo with the teachings of Hart by incorporating a thumb wheel that extends within the handle portion and exterior to an outer surface of the handle portion in order to easily manipulate movement of the anchors. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., 962 F.3d 1373, 1379, 2020 USPQ2d 10706 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). "[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim(s) 8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caborn in view of Evans et al. (US 20240065689 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Caborn discloses the system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the base portion of the deployment portion extends through a back end of the handle portion such that a back end portion of the base portion is positioned past the back end of the handle portion (Figure 13), but fails to disclose wherein the instrument further comprises a safety clip removably coupled with the back end portion of the base member that engages with the back end of the handle portion to prevent longitudinal movement of the deployment rod portion within the cavity of the insertion tube toward the tip thereof.
However, Evans is directed to an implant deployment system and teaches a safety clip (1520) removably coupled with a handle (1510) (Paragraph 0074), when combined with the device of Caborn would result in a safety clip removably coupled the back end portion of the base member that engages with the back end of the handle portion to prevent longitudinal movement of the deployment rod portion within the cavity of the insertion tube toward the tip thereof.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Caborn such that a safety clip , as taught by Evans, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to deployment 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 Caborn with the teachings of Evans by incorporating a safety clip in order to prevent accidental deployment (Evans Paragraph 0074).
Regarding claim 20, Caborn discloses the system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the second bone anchor comprises a head portion (body of 10) (Figure 7) but fails to explicitly disclose a shaft portion extending from the head portion, wherein the implant further comprises a washer member with a through hole, the washer member being configured to engage the head portion of the second bone anchor with the shaft portion of the second bone anchor extending through the through hole, and wherein the washer member is mounted on the instrument with the insertion tube and the tether extending through the through hole.
However, Evans is directed to an anchor system and teaches a bone anchor comprises a head portion (labeled in Annotated Figure 3E) and a shaft portion (360) extending from the head portion, wherein the implant further comprises a washer member (304) with a through hole (310) (Figure 3E; Paragraph 0056), the washer member being configured to engage the head portion of the second bone anchor with the shaft portion of the second bone anchor extending through the through hole (the washer comprises a through hole, thus the shaft portion could be inserted through the through hole if desired), and wherein the washer member is mounted on the instrument with the insertion tube and the tether extending through the through hole (prior to deployment, the washer portion would be mounted on the instrument as it is located outside the insertion tube) (Figure 12).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Caborn such that wherein the second bone anchor comprises a head portion and a shaft portion extending from the head portion, wherein the implant further comprises a washer member with a through hole, the washer member being configured to engage the head portion of the second bone anchor with the shaft portion of the second bone anchor extending through the through hole, and wherein the washer member is mounted on the instrument with the insertion tube and the tether extending through the through hole, as taught by Evans, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to anchor systems. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cabron with the teachings of Evans by incorporating wherein the second bone anchor comprises a head portion and a shaft portion extending from the head portion, wherein the implant further comprises a washer member with a through hole, the washer member being configured to engage the head portion of the second bone anchor with the shaft portion of the second bone anchor extending through the through hole, and wherein the washer member is mounted on the instrument with the insertion tube and the tether extending through the through hole in order to increase surface area of the anchoring point to prevent migration of the anchor.
PNG
media_image1.png
239
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caborn in view of Benderev (US 5582188 A).
Regarding claim 9, Caborn discloses the system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the base portion of the deployment portion extends through an opening in a back end of the handle portion such that a back end portion of the base portion is positioned past the back end of the handle portion, and wherein at least a first portion of the back end portion of the base portion defines a dimension larger than the opening such that longitudinal movement of the deployment portion toward the tip is prevented when the first portion engages the back end of the handle portion.
However, Benderev is directed to an anchor delivery system and teaches wherein the base portion (145) of the deployment portion (16) extends through an opening (147) in a back end of the handle portion (110) such that a back end portion (proximal-most end of 145) of the base portion is positioned past the back end of the handle portion (Figure 5; Col 20, line 35-37), and wherein at least a first portion of the back end portion of the base portion defines a dimension larger than the opening such that longitudinal movement of the deployment portion toward the tip is prevented when the first portion engages the back end of the handle portion (Figure 5).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Caborn such that wherein the base portion of the deployment portion extends through an opening in a back end of the handle portion such that a back end portion of the base portion is positioned past the back end of the handle portion, and wherein at least a first portion of the back end portion of the base portion defines a dimension larger than the opening such that longitudinal movement of the deployment portion toward the tip is prevented when the first portion engages the back end of the handle portion, as taught by Benderev, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to anchor 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 Caborn with the teachings of Benderev by incorporating wherein the base portion of the deployment portion extends through an opening in a back end of the handle portion such that a back end portion of the base portion is positioned past the back end of the handle portion, and wherein at least a first portion of the back end portion of the base portion defines a dimension larger than the opening such that longitudinal movement of the deployment portion toward the tip is prevented when the first portion engages the back end of the handle portion in order to provide the user with access to the deployment portion for manipulation.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caborn in view of Wenstrom (US 5578057 A).
Regarding claim 10, Caborn discloses the system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the second bone anchor member is removably retained within a retention opening of an anchor retention portion of the handle portion.
However, Wenstrom is directed to an anchor device and teaches a retention opening (294a,b) of an anchor retention portion (402) of the handle portion (204) (Figure 11; Col 6, lines 12-17; Col 11, lone 20-22).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Caborn such that the second bone anchor member is removably retained within a retention opening of an anchor retention portion of the handle portion, as taught by Wenstrom, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to anchoring 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 Caborn with the teachings of Wenstrom by incorporating the second bone anchor member is removably retained within a retention opening of an anchor retention portion of the handle portion in order to maintain the anchor in a fixed setting prior to deployment.
Regarding claim 11, Caborn further discloses the tether is in longitudinal tension between the first and second bone anchors to selectively retain the first bone anchor within the cavity of the insertion tube and the second bone anchor (Figure 4-6; Paragraph 0113-114), thus Cabron as modified by Wenstrom teaches wherein the tether is in longitudinal tension between the first and second bone anchors to selectively retain the first bone anchor within the cavity of the insertion tube and the second bone anchor within the retention opening of the anchor retention portion until after deployment of the implant.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caborn in view of Bae et al. (WO 2024117881 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Cabron discloses the system of claim 13, and further discloses wherein the second bone anchor comprises a head portion (body of 10) (Figure 7) but fails to explicitly disclose a shaft portion extending from the head portion, wherein the second pair of tether apertures are formed by a longitudinal opening in the head portion and a lateral through hole through the shaft portion of the second anchor that is in communication with the longitudinal opening.
However, Bae is directed to an anchor system and teaches wherein the bone anchor (820) comprises a head portion (labeled in Annotated Figure 8H) and a shaft portion (Labeled in Annotated Figure 8H) extending from the head portion, wherein the second pair of tether apertures are formed by a longitudinal opening in the head portion and a lateral through hole through the shaft portion of the second anchor that is in communication with the longitudinal opening (Figure 8G-H; Paragraph 131).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Cabron such that the second anchor comprises a head portion and a shaft portion extending from the head portion, wherein the second pair of tether apertures are formed by a longitudinal opening in the head portion and a lateral through hole through the shaft portion of the second anchor that is in communication with the longitudinal opening, as taught by Bae, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to anchor systems. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cabron with the teachings of Bae by incorporating the anchor comprises a head portion and a shaft portion extending from the head portion, wherein the second pair of tether apertures are formed by a longitudinal opening in the head portion and a lateral through hole through the shaft portion of the second anchor that is in communication with the longitudinal opening in order to attach the anchor more securely.
PNG
media_image2.png
177
391
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Cabron as modified by Bae further teaches wherein the first end portion of the tether extends through the first tether aperture from the head portion to the shaft portion, and the second end portion of the tether extends through the second tether aperture from the shaft portion to the head portion (Cabron Figure 10A-C; Paragraph 0093).
Regarding claim 16, Cabron further discloses wherein the first and second end portions of the tether are arranged in a slip knot that is configured to retain the length of the intermediate portion of the tether extending between the first and second anchors (Paragraph 0102; 0125).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caborn in view of Zhou et al. (US 20200297490 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Caborn discloses the system of claim 18, and further discloses wherein the instrument further comprises a tether retainer keeper (122), the tether retainer keeper being configured to extend about the projections beneath the wing portions and over the end portions of the tether wrapped thereabout in a resiliently deformed expanded state (Figure 13; Paragraph 0111), but fails to disclose the tether retainer keeper comprising an elastic member with an opening.
However, Zhou is directed to an anchor delivery system and teaches a safety lock comprising an elastic member (42) with an opening (Figure 1A; Paragraph 0082).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Caborn such that the tether retainer keeper comprising an elastic member with an opening, as taught by Zhou, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to anchor systems. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Caborn with the teachings of Zhou by incorporating the tether retainer keeper comprising an elastic member with an opening as a spring is known in the art as a safety lock mechanism. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., 962 F.3d 1373, 1379, 2020 USPQ2d 10706 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). "[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Conclusion
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 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.
/Z.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/KATHERINE H SCHWIKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771