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 09/29/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A (Figures 1-7) and Subspecies AA (Figures 3 and 4) in the reply filed on 09/29/2025 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Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 09/29/2025
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “one-way locking mechanism” in claim 1. Based on the specification (Para. 0024], the one-way locking mechanism is a plurality of locking barbs.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-12 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 1-12, Fleischman discloses [claim 1] a bone plate assembly (combination of 75, 95, and suture with ends 80 and 85, Fig. 13 and Paras. [0126], [0127], and [0115]), comprising: a bone plate (75, Fig. 23. Also see Fig. 9) including an opening (78, Fig. 13); a locking ferrule (95, Fig. 13 and Para. [0126], also see Fig. 11) received within the opening and including a one-way locking mechanism (100, Paras. [0121] and [0127], also see Fig. 11); and a suture received through the locking ferrule and locked relative to the bone plate by the one-way locking mechanism (Para. [0121]);
[claim 2] wherein the one-way locking mechanism is configured to allow the suture to be tensioned in a first direction and prevent the suture from moving in a second direction (Para. [0121]);
[claim 3] wherein the one-way locking mechanism is established by a plurality of locking barbs (100, Fig. 11 and Para. [0127]) provided within a cannulation (central passageway of 95, Fig. 11) of the locking ferrule;
[claim 4] wherein the cannulation extends through an eyelet portion (cylinder portion between protrusions 105, Figs. 13 and 16) of the locking ferrule;
[claim 5] an engagement portion (105, Figs. 13 and 16) connected to the eyelet portion;
[claim 6] wherein the engagement portion includes a pair of flexible retention legs (pair of 105, Figs. 13 and 16) that are configured to clip the locking ferrule to the bone plate (Para. [0126]);
[claim 7] wherein the locking ferrule includes an engagement portion (exterior wall portion of 95 is received through the opening of the bone plate) received through the opening and an eyelet portion (internal portion of 95 with the central passageway and barbs) that extends to a location outside of the opening (the internal wall portion of the protrusions 105 of the suture-securing mechanism 95 extends to a location outside of the opening, Fig. 13 and Para. [0126]);
[claim 8] wherein the eyelet portion provides the one-way locking mechanism (barbs 100, Fig. 13 and Para. [0121], also see Fig. 11);
[claim 9] wherein the one-way locking mechanism includes a plurality of locking barbs that allow the suture to be tensioned in a first direction and prevent the suture from moving in a second direction (Para. [0121]);
[claim 10] wherein the engagement portion includes a pair of flexible retention legs that are configured to clip the locking ferrule to the bone plate (Figs. 16 and 13 and Para. [0126], the engagement portion or the external wall portion of 95 includes a pair of flexible retention legs that are configured to clip the locking ferrule to the bone plate);
[claim 11] wherein the suture retains the locking ferrule within the opening (Fig. 11, the suture retains the locking ferrule within the opening because the suture applies the pressure onto 11 which enables partly retaining the locking ferrule within the opening); and
[claim 12] wherein the locking ferrule includes a body that is cylindrical shaped (Fig. 16, the locking ferrule 95 has a body that is cylindrical shaped).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20120101526 A1 Bennett; William F. discloses a suture locking device with a one-way locking mechanism.
US 20140031864 A1 Jafari; Mohammad et al. discloses a suture locking device with a one-way locking mechanism.
US 20180132843 A1 Chalekson; Charles P. discloses a suture locking device with a one-way locking mechanism.
US 5725556 A Moser; Thomas V. et al. discloses a suture locking device with a one-way locking mechanism.
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