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 amendment filed on 02/03/2026. Claims 1, 3-10, and 16-25 are pending. Claims 1 and 18 are independent. Claims 2 and 11-15 are canceled.
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 –
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 16, and 17 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, 3-10, 16, and 17, Fleischman dsicloses [claim 1] a suture locking device, comprising: an arthroplasty implant (75 or combination of 75 and 45, Figs. 4 and 9-12) including an opening (103, Figs. 4 and 9-12), wherein the arthroplasty implant is a joint prosthesis component (arthroplasty implant 75 is fully capable to serve as a joint prosthesis component because it is configured to be mounted to bone); and a locking ferrule (95, Figs. 9-12 and Paras. [0121] and [0122]) insertable into the opening (Paras. [0123] and 125], “tubular structure 102 of suture-securing mechanisms 95 are press-fit into holes 103.” Also see Figs. 60-61 for example of having 95 inserting into opening of a washer), the locking ferrule including a tubular body with a cannulation and a plurality of locking barbs (the plurality of locking barbs 100 in the locking ferrule, Figs. 9-12 and Para. [0121]) protruding inwardly along a length of the cannulation to permit a suture to advance in a first direction and resist movement in a second, opposite direction, thereby locking the suture relative to the arthroplasty implant (Para. [0121]); [claim 3] wherein a one-way locking mechanism is established by the plurality of locking barbs (100, Fig. 11 and Para. [0121]) provided within a cannulation of the locking ferrule (Fig. 11); [claim 4] wherein the cannulation extends through the tubular body of the locking ferrule (Fig. 11); [claim 5] wherein the plurality of locking barbs are each angled in a common direction within the cannulation (Fig. 11); [claim 6] wherein the plurality of locking barbs are arranged in at least a first row and a second row (the two barbs in arranged in a first row and another two barbs arranged in a second row, Fig. 12) along the cannulation (Figs. 11 and 12 and Paras. [0121]-[0127]); [claim 7] 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 (a first portion of the plurality of locking barbs of the first row are staggered relative to second portion of the plurality of locking barbs of the second row, Fig. 12 and Para. [0127]); [claim 8] wherein the one-way locking mechanism is fully capable to lock the suture which includes a varying thickness (the one-way locking mechanism is fully capable to lock the suture which includes a varying thickness because it is configured to lock a suture); [claim 9] wherein the one-way locking mechanism is fully capable to lock the suture which includes at least one tapered region where the suture transitions between a thickened section and a thinned section (the one-way locking mechanism is fully capable to lock the suture which includes at least one tapered region where the suture transitions between a thickened section and a thinned section because it is configured to lock a suture); [claim 10] wherein the one-way locking mechanism is fully capable to lock the suture with the thickened section is about twice as thick as the thinned section (the one-way locking mechanism is fully capable to lock the suture with the thickened section is about twice as thick as the thinned section because it is configured to lock a suture); [claim 16] wherein the arthroplasty implant is a prosthetic shoulder component (the arthroplasty implant is fully capable to serve as a prosthetic shoulder component because it is configured to be mounted to bone); [claim 17] wherein the arthroplasty implant is a ring-shaped implant that includes a plurality of circumferentially spaced openings (Figs. 4-11).
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) 18-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischman et al. (US Pub. No.: 2019/0117210) in view of Ruff et al. (US Pub. No.: 2005/0267531).
Regarding claims 18-21 and 23-25, Fleischman discloses a suture locking system, comprising: an arthroplasty implant (75 or combination of 75 and 45, Figs. 4 and 9-12) having an opening (103, Figs. 4 and 9-12) extending through a body of the arthroplasty implant (Figs. 4 and 9-12); a locking ferrule (95, Figs. 9-12 and Paras. [0121] and [0122]) sized for insertion into the opening of the arthroplasty implant (Paras. [0123] and 125], “tubular structure 102 of suture-securing mechanisms 95 are press-fit into holes 103.” Also see Figs. 60-61 for example of having 95 inserting into opening of a washer), the locking ferrule comprising a tubular body defining a cannulation and a plurality of locking barbs (the plurality of locking barbs 100 in the locking ferrule, Figs. 9-12 and Para. [0121]) protruding inwardly from an interior wall of the cannulation, the locking barbs being angled to permit movement of a suture in a first direction through the cannulation and resist movement of the suture in a second, opposite direction (Fig. 11 and Para. [0121]); and a suture (40, Fig. 9) extending through the cannulation of the locking ferrule, wherein the locking barbs interdigitate with a thickened section of the suture within the cannulation to one-way lock the suture relative to the arthroplasty implant (Fig. 11, the locking barbs interdigitate with a thickened section of the suture within the cannulation to one-way lock the suture relative to the arthroplasty implant); [claim 19] wherein the arthroplasty implant is a joint prosthesis component (arthroplasty implant 75 is fully capable to serve as a joint prosthesis component because it is configured to be mounted to bone); [claim 20] wherein the joint prosthesis component is a prosthetic shoulder component (the arthroplasty implant is fully capable to serve as a prosthetic shoulder component because it is configured to be mounted to bone); [claim 21] wherein the joint prosthesis component is a ring-shaped implant that includes a plurality of circumferentially spaced openings (Figs. 4-11); [claim 23] wherein the plurality of locking barbs are arranged in at least a first row and a second row along the cannulation (the two barbs in arranged in a first row and another two barbs arranged in a second row, Fig. 12); [claim 24] 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 (a first portion of the plurality of locking barbs of the first row are staggered relative to second portion of the plurality of locking barbs of the second row, Fig. 12 and Para. [0127]); [claim 25] wherein the arthroplasty implant comprises a joint prosthesis component fully capable to replace a portion of a damaged or diseased joint (the arthroplasty implant 75 comprises a joint prosthesis component, such as the washer 75 itself and/or 45, is fully capable to replace a portion of a damaged or diseased joint because 75 and 45 are configured to be mounted to bone, such that the screw 45 or the washer 75 can be used to replace a bone portion of a damaged or diseased joint). However, Fleischman does not disclose that the suture having a varying thickness including at least one tapered region between the thickened section and a thinned section.
Ruff teaches, in the same field of endeavor (surgical suture), a suture (90, Fig. 1) having a varying thickness (Fig. 1) including at least one tapered region (the tapered region near the distal end 96 and between 96 and thickened part of 92) between a thickened section (see Figure below, thickened part of 92 proximal of the tapered distal tip of 92) and a thinned section (see Figure below, a thinned section at the distal end next to 96 and having the proximal end of the thinned section being about half as thick as the thickened section).
PNG
media_image1.png
332
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the suture of Fleischman to include a varying thickness including at least one tapered region between the thickened section and a thinned section as taught by Ruff in order to obtain the advantage of facilitating the manipulation of the suture, such as promoting easy insertion of the suture as the tapered end of the suture facilitate the insertion of the suture (Ruff, Paras. [0049] and [0050]).
Regarding claim 22, Ruff discloses that the thickened section is about twice as thick as the thinned section of the suture (see explanation above, the thickened section is about twice as thick as the thinned section of the suture because the thinned section being about half as thick as the thickened section).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-10, and 16-25 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
In response to the argument(s) on page 5-7 of the remarks, Fleischman dsicloses a suture locking device, comprising: an arthroplasty implant (75 or combination of 75 and 45, Figs. 4 and 9-12) including an opening (103, Figs. 4 and 9-12), wherein the arthroplasty implant is a joint prosthesis component (arthroplasty implant 75 is fully capable to serve as a joint prosthesis component because it is configured to be mounted to bone); and a locking ferrule (95, Figs. 9-12 and Paras. [0121] and [0122]) insertable into the opening (Paras. [0123] and 125], “tubular structure 102 of suture-securing mechanisms 95 are press-fit into holes 103.” Also see Figs. 60-61 for example of having 95 inserting into opening of a washer), the locking ferrule including a tubular body with a cannulation and a plurality of locking barbs (the plurality of locking barbs 100 in the locking ferrule, Figs. 9-12 and Para. [0121]) protruding inwardly along a length of the cannulation to permit a suture to advance in a first direction and resist movement in a second, opposite direction, thereby locking the suture relative to the arthroplasty implant (Para. [0121]); wherein the arthroplasty implant is a prosthetic shoulder component (the arthroplasty implant is fully capable to serve as a prosthetic shoulder component because it is configured to be mounted to bone); and wherein the arthroplasty implant is a ring-shaped implant that includes a plurality of circumferentially spaced openings (Figs. 4-11)
Furthermore, claims 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischman et al. (US Pub. No.: 2019/0117210) in view of Ruff et al. (US Pub. No.: 2005/0267531). See rejection above.
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 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