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 .
This action is in response to the Election/Restriction response filed on 05/11/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 11 are pending. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I (claims 1-10) and Species B (Fig. 7) in the reply filed on 05/11/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/11/2026.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 05/11/2026.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (US Pub. No.: 2019/0076141).
Regarding claims 1-9, Liu discloses [claim 1] a locking ferrule (200, Fig. 3B, suture lock 200 is fully capable for performing a cardiac valve procedure) for performing a cardiac valve procedure, comprising: a body (body of 200, Fig. 2B) including an outer diameter wall (Fig. 3B), an inner diameter wall (Fig. 3B), and a cannulation (central lumen of 200, Fig. 3B) that is circumscribed by the inner diameter wall; and a plurality of locking barbs (barbs 210, Fig. 2A and 2B) extending into the cannulation and configured to lock a suture relative to the body after the suture is passed through the cannulation (Para. [0031]); [claim 2] wherein the plurality of locking barbs are integral features of the body (Para. [0029]); [claim 3] wherein each of the plurality of locking barbs includes a pointed tip (Para. [0031], protrusions 210 are needle-shaped); [claim 4] wherein the body extends along a longitudinal axis between a proximal end (the end at which the protrusions 210 are pointing to, Figs. 3A and 3B) and a distal end (the end opposite to the proximal end); [claim 5] each of the plurality of locking barbs is angled in a direction toward the proximal end (Figs. 3A and 3B); [claim 6] wherein the plurality of locking barbs each protrude inwardly from the inner diameter wall (Figs. 3A and 3B); [claim 7] wherein the plurality of locking barbs are arranged in at least a first row and a second row (Fig. 3A and 3B; also see Fig. 2C); [claim 8] wherein a first portion of the plurality of locking barbs of the first row are staggered relative to a second portion of the plurality of locking barbs of the second row (Fig. 3A and 3B; also see Fig. 2C); [claim 9] wherein the body is angled (Fig. 3B, the body is bent slightly at an angle).
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fleischman et al. (US Pub. No.: 2019/0117210).
Regarding claims 1-9, Fleischman discloses [claim 1] a locking ferrule (95, Figs. 56 and 57; suture securing mechanism 95 is fully capable for performing a cardiac valve procedure) for performing a cardiac valve procedure, comprising: a body (body of 95, Figs. 56 and 57) including an outer diameter wall (Figs. 56 and 57), an inner diameter wall (Figs. 56 and 57), and a cannulation (central lumen of 95, Figs. 56 and 57) that is circumscribed by the inner diameter wall; and a plurality of locking barbs (100, Fig. 11 and Figs. 56 and 57) extending into the cannulation and configured to lock a suture relative to the body after the suture is passed through the cannulation; [claim 2] wherein the plurality of locking barbs are integral features of the body (Figs. 11, 16, 56, and 57); [claim 3] wherein each of the plurality of locking barbs includes a pointed tip (Figs. 11, 16, 56, and 57); [claim 4] wherein the body extends along a longitudinal axis between a proximal end (the end at which the suture holding elements 100 are pointing to, Figs. 11, 16, 56, and 57) and a distal end (the end opposite to the proximal end); [claim 5] each of the plurality of locking barbs is angled in a direction toward the proximal end (Fig. 56 and 57); [claim 6] wherein the plurality of locking barbs each protrude inwardly from the inner diameter wall (Figs. 11, 56, and 57); [claim 7] wherein the plurality of locking barbs are arranged in at least a first row and a second row (Figs. 11, 12, 56, and 57); [claim 8] wherein a first portion of the plurality of locking barbs of the first row are staggered relative to a second portion of the plurality of locking barbs of the second row (Figs. 11, 16, 56, and 57); [claim 9] wherein the body is angled (Figs. 56 and 57, the body is angled at the end on the left side of the Figs. 56 and 57).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20140379004 A1 RAYBIN; Samuel et al. discloses a hemostasis device with one way trap.
US 20180132843 A1 Chalekson; Charles P. discloses a suture locking device having barbs within the device for locking the suture.
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