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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dreyfuss (US 2014/0052179 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Dreyfuss discloses:
A tissue repair construct (see Fig. 15) comprising:
a repair suture (suture 11, see Fig. 15), the repair suture comprising:
a first section (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 15 below showing a “First Section” of the suture);
a second section connected to the first section (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 15 below showing a “First Section” of the suture connected to the “First Section”); and
a third section connected to the second section opposite the first section (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 15 below showing a “Third Section” of the suture connected to the “Second Section” opposite the “First Section”), the third section comprising a spliced region adjacent to the second section (splice 53, see Fig. 15);
wherein the first section and a portion of the second section extends through the spliced region (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 15 below showing wherein a portion of both the “First Section” and “Second Section” pass through the splice), forming a repair loop (loop 55A, see Fig. 15); and
wherein the spliced region forms a finger trap, such that the repair loop can be tightened around a repair but not loosened (see Para. [0040]).
PNG
media_image1.png
563
757
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 15
Regarding claim 14, Dreyfuss discloses the invention of claim 9, Dreyfuss further discloses wherein the second section comprises suture tape (see Para. [0039]).
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petry (US 2019/0365366 A1) in view of Anderson (US 2019/0008507 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Petry discloses:
A tissue repair construct (see Fig. 4) comprising:
a repair suture (suture 12, see Fig. 4), the repair suture comprising:
a first section (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 4 below showing a “First Section” of the suture);
a second section connected to the first section (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 4 below showing a “Second Section” of the suture connected to the “First Section”); and
a third section connected to the second section opposite the first section (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 4 below showing a “Third Section” of the suture connected to the “Second Section” opposite the “First Section”), the third section comprising a spliced region adjacent to the second section (sleeve 35, see Fig. 4; see also Para. [0023] mentioning wherein the sleeve has two open ends allowing a flexible material suture 33 to pass therethrough); and
a transfer suture (flexible material suture 33, see Fig. 3), a portion of the transfer suture extending through the spliced region (see Fig. 4 and Para. [0023]) such that first and second ends of the transfer suture extend from opposite ends of the spliced region (see Fig. 4).
However, while Petry discloses the spliced region is disposed along the length of the repair suture (12), Petry does not expressly disclose:
wherein the spliced region forms a finger trap, such that the spliced region allows movement of the transfer suture through the spliced region in a first direction, but prevents movement of the transfer suture through the spliced region in a second direction opposite the first direction.
In the same field of endeavor, namely suturing devices for closing wounds in tissue, Anderson teaches wherein a suture (see Fig. 2) comprises a spliced region (40, see Fig. 2 and Para. [0045]-[0047]) allowing passage of another portion of suture to extend therethrough (see Fig. 2); wherein the spliced region acts as a self-cinching trap to provide a cinching forces to the sutures extending therethrough in one direction while preventing inadvertent release of the applied suture tension (see Abstract and Para. [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the spliced sleeve region of the repair suture (12) of Petry to act as a one-directional cinching trap as taught and suggested by Anderson to, in this case, allow for tensioning of the suture(s) extending through said sleeve to occur in a desired direction while preventing inadvertent release of the applied suture tension (see Anderson Abstract and Para. [0065]).
PNG
media_image2.png
820
723
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 4
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Petry and Anderson disclose the invention of claim 1, Petry further discloses wherein the second comprises suture tape (see Para. [0008] mentioning wherein the suture may be formed from suture tape).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Petry and Anderson disclose the invention of claim 1, Petry further discloses wherein the first end of the transfer suture includes a transfer loop (loops 22, see Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 2-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petry (US 2019/0365366 A1) in view of Anderson (US 2019/0008507 A1), further in view of Khairkhahan (US 2015/0366556 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Petry and Anderson disclose all of the limitations of the invention of claim 1.
However, while Petry discloses wherein the suture may be formed from “for example, a flexible strand such as a suture, or tape such as suture tape” (see Para. [0008]), none of either Petry or Anderson expressly disclose wherein a material of the second section is selected to be different than a material of the first section.
In the same field of endeavor, namely surgical suture devices, Khairkhahan teaches wherein a surgical suture may be formed as a 2-0, 3-0, 4-0 or 5-0 suture (see Para. [0152])
Since Petry expressly discloses wherein the material used to form the suture of the disclosed device is not a critical feature to the functioning of the device (per Para. [0008]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of simple substitution of one known suture material for another (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) to have obtained the predictable result of forming the “Second Section” of the suture of Petry from suture tape, as disclosed by Petry see Para. [0008]) while having formed the “First Section” be formed from 2-0 suture material as disclosed to be a known alternative material within the art by Khairkhahan (see Para. [0152]). Since Petry discloses wherein the suture can be formed from any number of different materials without affecting the functionality of scope of the disclosed device, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the device of Petry to function equally well with the suture formed entirely of suture tape, or from a combination of suture tape and 2-0 suture material, as modified by Khairkhahan. Further, it has also been held that selection of a known material for a specific intended purpose is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Petry and Anderson disclose all of the limitations of the invention of claim 1.
However, while Petry discloses wherein the suture may be formed from “for example, a flexible strand such as a suture, or tape such as suture tape” (see Para. [0008]), none of either Petry or Anderson expressly disclose wherein a material of the third section is selected to be different than a material of the first section.
In the same field of endeavor, namely surgical suture devices, Khairkhahan teaches wherein a surgical suture may be formed as a 2-0, 3-0, 4-0 or 5-0 suture (see Para. [0152])
Since Petry expressly discloses wherein the material used to form the suture of the disclosed device is not a critical feature to the functioning of the device (per Para. [0008]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of simple substitution of one known suture material for another (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) to have obtained the predictable result of forming the “Third Section” of the suture of Petry from suture tape, as disclosed by Petry see Para. [0008]) while having formed the “First Section” be formed from 2-0 suture material as disclosed to be a known alternative material within the art by Khairkhahan (see Para. [0152]). Since Petry discloses wherein the suture can be formed from any number of different materials without affecting the functionality of scope of the disclosed device, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the device of Petry to function equally well with the suture formed entirely of suture tape, or from a combination of suture tape and 2-0 suture material, as modified by Khairkhahan. Further, it has also been held that selection of a known material for a specific intended purpose is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Petry and Anderson disclose all of the limitations of the invention of claim 1.
However, while Petry discloses wherein the suture may be formed from “for example, a flexible strand such as a suture, or tape such as suture tape” (see Para. [0008]), none of either Petry or Anderson expressly disclose wherein a material of the third section is selected to be different than a material of the second section.
In the same field of endeavor, namely surgical suture devices, Khairkhahan teaches wherein a surgical suture may be formed as a 2-0, 3-0, 4-0 or 5-0 suture (see Para. [0152])
Since Petry expressly discloses wherein the material used to form the suture of the disclosed device is not a critical feature to the functioning of the device (per Para. [0008]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of simple substitution of one known suture material for another (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) to have obtained the predictable result of forming the “Second Section” of the suture of Petry from suture tape, as disclosed by Petry see Para. [0008]) while having formed the “Third Section” be formed from 2-0 suture material as disclosed to be a known alternative material within the art by Khairkhahan (see Para. [0152]). Since Petry discloses wherein the suture can be formed from any number of different materials without affecting the functionality of scope of the disclosed device, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the device of Petry to function equally well with the suture formed entirely of suture tape, or from a combination of suture tape and 2-0 suture material, as modified by Khairkhahan. Further, it has also been held that selection of a known material for a specific intended purpose is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Petry and Anderson discloses all of the limitations of the invention of claim 1.
However, while Petry discloses wherein the suture may be formed from “for example, a flexible strand such as a suture, or tape such as suture tape” (see Para. [0008]), none of either Petry or Anderson expressly disclose wherein the first section of the suture comprises a 2-0 suture.
In the same field of endeavor, namely surgical suture devices, Khairkhahan teaches wherein a surgical suture may be formed as a 2-0, 3-0, 4-0 or 5-0 suture (see Para. [0152])
Since Petry expressly discloses wherein the material used to form the suture of the disclosed device is not a critical feature to the functioning of the device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of simple substitution of one known suture material for another (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) to have obtained the predictable result of forming the “First Section” of the suture of Petry from 2-0 suture material as disclosed to be a known alternative material within the art by Khairkhahan (see Para. [0152]). Since Petry discloses wherein the suture can be formed from “any flexible strand such as suture or suture tape” without affecting the functionality of scope of the disclosed device, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the device of Petry to function equally well with the suture formed of either suture tape or from 2-0 suture material as both are known materials within the art. Further, it has also been held that selection of a known material for a specific intended purpose is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Petry and Anderson discloses all of the limitations of the invention of claim 1.
However, while Petry discloses wherein the suture may be formed from “for example, a flexible strand such as a suture, or tape such as suture tape” (see Para. [0008]), none of either Petry or Anderson expressly disclose wherein the third section of the suture comprises a No. 2 suture.
In the same field of endeavor, namely surgical suture devices, Khairkhahan teaches wherein a surgical suture may be formed as a 2-0, 3-0, 4-0 or 5-0 suture (see Para. [0152])
Since Petry expressly discloses wherein the material used to form the suture of the disclosed device is not a critical feature to the functioning of the device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of simple substitution of one known suture material for another (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) to have obtained the predictable result of forming the “Third Section” of the suture of Petry from 2-0 (No. 2) suture material as disclosed to be a known alternative material within the art by Khairkhahan (see Para. [0152]). Since Petry discloses wherein the suture can be formed from “any flexible strand such as suture or suture tape” without affecting the functionality of scope of the disclosed device, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the device of Petry to function equally well with the suture formed of either suture tape or from 2-0 (No. 2) suture material as both are known materials within the art. Further, it has also been held that selection of a known material for a specific intended purpose is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Claim(s) 10-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreyfuss (US 2014/0052179 A1) in view of Khairkhahan (US 2015/0366556 A1).
Regarding claim 10, while Dreyfuss discloses wherein the suture (11) can be “any flexible strand such as suture or suture tape” (see Para. [0039]), Dreyfuss does not expressly disclose wherein a material of the second section is selected to be different than a material of the first section.
In the same field of endeavor, namely surgical suture devices, Khairkhahan teaches wherein a surgical suture may be formed as a 2-0, 3-0, 4-0 or 5-0 suture (see Para. [0152])
Since Dreyfuss expressly discloses wherein the material used to form the suture of the disclosed device is not a critical feature to the functioning of the device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of simple substitution of one known suture material for another (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) to have obtained the predictable result of forming the “Second Section” of the suture of Dreyfuss from suture tape, as disclosed by Dreyfuss see Para. [0039]) while having formed the “First Section” from 2-0 suture material as disclosed to be a known alternative material within the art by Khairkhahan (see Para. [0152]). Since Dreyfuss discloses wherein the suture can be formed from “any flexible strand such as suture or suture tape” without affecting the functionality of scope of the disclosed device, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the device of Dreyfuss to function equally well with the suture formed entirely of suture tape, or from a combination of suture tape and 2-0 suture material, as modified by Khairkhahan. Further, it has also been held that selection of a known material for a specific intended purpose is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 11, Dreyfuss discloses all of the limitations of the invention of claim 9.
However, while Dreyfuss discloses wherein the suture (11) can be “any flexible strand such as suture or suture tape” (see Para. [0039]), Dreyfuss does not expressly disclose wherein a material of the third section is selected to be different than a material of the first section.
In the same field of endeavor, namely surgical suture devices, Khairkhahan teaches wherein a surgical suture may be formed as a 2-0, 3-0, 4-0 or 5-0 suture (see Para. [0152])
Since Dreyfuss expressly discloses wherein the material used to form the suture of the disclosed device is not a critical feature to the functioning of the device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of simple substitution of one known suture material for another (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) to have obtained the predictable result of forming the “Third Section” of the suture of Dreyfuss from suture tape, as disclosed by Dreyfuss see Para. [0039]) while having formed the “First Section” from 2-0 suture material as disclosed to be a known alternative material within the art by Khairkhahan (see Para. [0152]). Since Dreyfuss discloses wherein the suture can be formed from “any flexible strand such as suture or suture tape” without affecting the functionality of scope of the disclosed device, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the device of Dreyfuss to function equally well with the suture formed entirely of suture tape, or from a combination of suture tape and 2-0 suture material, as modified by Khairkhahan. Further, it has also been held that selection of a known material for a specific intended purpose is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 12, Dreyfuss discloses all of the limitations of the invention of claim 9.
However, while Dreyfuss discloses wherein the suture (11) can be “any flexible strand such as suture or suture tape” (see Para. [0039]), Dreyfuss does not expressly disclose wherein a material of the third section is selected to be different than a material of the second section.
In the same field of endeavor, namely surgical suture devices, Khairkhahan teaches wherein a surgical suture may be formed as a 2-0, 3-0, 4-0 or 5-0 suture (see Para. [0152])
Since Dreyfuss expressly discloses wherein the material used to form the suture of the disclosed device is not a critical feature to the functioning of the device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of simple substitution of one known suture material for another (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) to have obtained the predictable result of forming the “Second Section” of the suture of Dreyfuss from suture tape, as disclosed by Dreyfuss see Para. [0039]) while having formed the “Third Section” from 2-0 suture material as disclosed to be a known alternative material within the art by Khairkhahan (see Para. [0152]). Since Dreyfuss discloses wherein the suture can be formed from “any flexible strand such as suture or suture tape” without affecting the functionality of scope of the disclosed device, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the device of Dreyfuss to function equally well with the suture formed entirely of suture tape, or from a combination of suture tape and 2-0 suture material, as modified by Khairkhahan. Further, it has also been held that selection of a known material for a specific intended purpose is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 13, Dreyfuss discloses all of the limitations of the invention of claim 9.
However, while Dreyfuss discloses wherein the suture (11) can be “any flexible strand such as suture or suture tape” (see Para. [0039]), Dreyfuss does not expressly disclose wherein the first section of the suture comprises a 2-0 suture.
In the same field of endeavor, namely surgical suture devices, Khairkhahan teaches wherein a surgical suture may be formed as a 2-0, 3-0, 4-0 or 5-0 suture (see Para. [0152])
Since Dreyfuss expressly discloses wherein the material used to form the suture of the disclosed device is not a critical feature to the functioning of the device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of simple substitution of one known suture material for another (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) to have obtained the predictable result of forming the “First Section” of the suture of Dreyfuss from 2-0 suture material as disclosed to be a known alternative material within the art by Khairkhahan (see Para. [0152]). Since Dreyfuss discloses wherein the suture can be formed from “any flexible strand such as suture or suture tape” without affecting the functionality of scope of the disclosed device, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the device of Dreyfuss to function equally well with the suture formed of either suture tape or from 2-0 suture material as both are known materials within the art. Further, it has also been held that selection of a known material for a specific intended purpose is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 15, Dreyfuss discloses all of the limitations of the invention of claim 9.
However, while Dreyfuss discloses wherein the suture (11) can be “any flexible strand such as suture or suture tape” (see Para. [0039]), Dreyfuss does not expressly disclose wherein the third section of the suture comprises a No. 2 suture.
In the same field of endeavor, namely surgical suture devices, Khairkhahan teaches wherein a surgical suture may be formed as a 2-0, 3-0, 4-0 or 5-0 suture (see Para. [0152]).
Since Dreyfuss expressly discloses wherein the material used to form the suture of the disclosed device is not a critical feature to the functioning of the device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of simple substitution of one known suture material for another (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) to have obtained the predictable result of forming the “Third Section” of the suture of Dreyfuss from 2-0 (No. 2) suture material as disclosed to be a known alternative material within the art by Khairkhahan (see Para. [0152]). Since Dreyfuss discloses wherein the suture can be formed from “any flexible strand such as suture or suture tape” without affecting the functionality of scope of the disclosed device, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the device of Dreyfuss to function equally well with the suture formed of either suture tape or from 2-0 (No. 2) suture material as both are known materials within the art. Further, it has also been held that selection of a known material for a specific intended purpose is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16-20 are allowed over the prior art.
Regarding claim 16, the closest prior art of record, namely Petry (US 2019/0365366 A1) discloses:
A method of tissue repair comprising:
forming a tunnel through a bone adjacent a tissue in need of repair (see Para. [0026] and [0034] mentioning wherein a bone socket or tunnel is formed within bone (i.e., of a rotator cuff) before use of the suture device);
passing a tissue repair construct (see Fig. 4) through the tunnel (see Figs. 8-9 and Para. [0026] and [0034]) and through the tissue (see Para. [0026] and [0034] mentioning wherein the suture construct is passed through tissue before insertion into a bone socket/tunnel) such that a first end of a third section and a second end of a transfer suture (flexible suture 33, see Fig. 4) of the tissue repair construct extend from the tunnel (see Figs. 12-13 showing wherein a middle portion of the suture (33) is inserted into a bone hole/tunnel; the middle portion of said suture (33) defines a connection between a first and second ends of the suture), and a first section and a first end of the transfer suture of the tissue repair construct extend from of the tissue (see Figs. 12-13), the tissue repair construct further comprising:
a repair suture (suture 12, see Fig. 4), the repair suture comprising:
the first section (a first section (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 4 below showing a “First Section” of the suture);
a second section connected to the first section (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 4 below showing a “Second Section” of the suture connected to the “First Section”); and
the third section connected to the second section opposite the first section (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 4 below showing a “Third Section” of the suture connected to the “Second Section” opposite the “First Section”), the third section comprising a spliced region adjacent to the second section (sleeve 35, see Fig. 4; see also Para. [0023] mentioning wherein the sleeve has two open ends allowing a flexible material suture 33 to pass therethrough);
wherein a portion of the transfer suture extends through the spliced region (see Fig. 4 and Para. [0023]) such that the first and second ends of the transfer suture extend from opposite ends of the spliced region (see Fig. 4);
tensioning the sutures to secure the tissue against the bone (see Para. [0070]).
However, while Petry discloses the spliced region is disposed along the length of the repair suture (12), Petry does not expressly disclose:
wherein the spliced region forms a finger trap, such that the repair loop can be tightened along the surface of the tissue and the bone, but not loosened;
wherein the first end of the transfer suture including a transfer loop;
passing the first section of the tissue repair construct through the transfer loop;
using the second end of the transfer suture, pulling the first section and a portion of the second section through the spliced region to form a repair loop extending along a surface of the tissue and the bone.
In the same field of endeavor, namely suturing devices for closing wounds in tissue, Anderson teaches wherein a suture (see Fig. 2) comprises a spliced region (40, see Fig. 2 and Para. [0045]-[0047]) allowing passage of another portion of suture to extend therethrough (see Fig. 2); wherein the spliced region acts as a self-cinching trap to provide a cinching forces to the sutures extending therethrough in one direction while preventing inadvertent release of the applied suture tension (see Abstract and Para. [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the spliced sleeve region of the repair suture (12) of Petry to act as a one-directional cinching trap as taught and suggested by Anderson to, in this case, allow for tensioning of the suture(s) extending through said sleeve to occur in a desired direction while preventing inadvertent release of the applied suture tension (see Anderson Abstract and Para. [0065]).
While including loops onto ends of suture devices is common and known within the prior art (i.e., for attaching the suture to another device and/or suture), it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized a transfer loop attached to the transfer suture of Petry to perform the method steps of “passing the first section of the tissue repair construct through the transfer loop; using the second end of the transfer suture, pulling the first section and a portion of the second section through the spliced region to form a repair loop extending along a surface of the tissue and the bone” without an express teaching from the prior art. While it may have been possible to utilize said transfer loop in the to perform the recited method steps, none of the prior art of record, including those cited on the attached PTO-892 expressly discloses, teaches or suggests, in combination with the additional structural limitations of claim 16, wherein a suture loop is used to perform the above-cited method steps.
PNG
media_image2.png
820
723
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 4
Claims 17-20 are additionally viewed to be allowable due to their dependency from and further modification of claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure. See the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, US 2025/0143688 A1 to Paul, US 2026/0026798 A1 to Housman, US 2024/0415505 A1 to Housman, US 2023/0133232 A1 to Patel, US 20150057706 A1 to Fallin, US 20160228118 A1 to Chan, US 20170143551 A1 to Coleman, US 20130096611 A1 to Sullivan, US 20140094911 A1 to Fallin, US 20120265219 A1 to Rushdy, US 20170071724 A1 to Fallin, US 20140107672 A1 to Dross, US 6514274 B1 to Boucher, US 20150173739 A1 to Rodriguez, US 20260007401 A1 to McCartney, US 20250312075 A1 to Crook, US 12295569 B1 to Anderson, US 20240206867 A1 to Callison, US 20240081803 A1 to Bixby, US 20240000445 A1 to Gabriel, US 20210196264 A1 to Bachmaier, US 20200405282 A1 to Miller, US 20170128063 A1 to Jackson, US 20140052179 A1 to Dreyfuss, US 20160287243 A1 to Benedict, US 20100160962 A1 to Dreyfuss and US 11839367 B1 to Bixby all disclose surgical suture devices comprising at least one suture having a spliced portion that another portion of said suture or a second suture extends through for use in forming an attachment to either bone or tissue.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MITCHELL B HOAG whose telephone number is (571)272-0983. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
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 5712724695. 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.
/M.B.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/DARWIN P EREZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771