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 Species F in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-11, 13-15, and 18-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, as Species F does not disclose any anchors, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/24/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention
Claim 12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a free loop disposed on the first and second adjustable loops”. However, it is indefinite and unclear whether each of the first and second adjustable loops comprise a respective free loop or if a singular free loop extends through both the first and second adjustable loops. For examination purposes, the limitation will be seen as “a free loop disposed on the first and/or second adjustable loops”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a second shuttling suture disposed on the first and second adjustable loops”, however it is indefinite and unclear whether one second shuttling suture is disposed on either one of the first or second adjustable loops, or one shuttling suture extends through both the first and second adjustable loops, or if each loop is provided with a respective shuttling suture. For examination purposes, the limitation will be seen as
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a free loop disposed on the first and second adjustable loops”. However, it is indefinite and unclear whether either one of the first or second adjustable loops are provided with a free loop, each of the first and second adjustable loops comprise a respective free loop or if a singular free loop extends through both the first and second adjustable loops. For examination purposes, the limitation will be seen as “a free loop disposed on the first and/or second adjustable loops”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jackson (US 20190038276 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jackson discloses an internal brace apparatus (Figure 5A-B), comprising:
a suture construct (500) comprising a fixed loop (514) (knot 530 is formed to fix loop 514 at its desired size) (Figure 5A; Paragraph 0068);
a first strand (502) extending in a direction away from the fixed loop (Figure 5A; Paragraph 0068); and
a second strand (504) extending in a direction away from the fixed loop (Figure 5A-B; Paragraph 0068) ,
wherein the first strand passes through a first self-cinching (506), thereby forming a first adjustable loop (508) (Figure 5A; Paragraph 0068), and
wherein the second strand passes through a second self-cinching (507), thereby forming a second adjustable loop (520) (Figure 5A; Paragraph 0068).
Regarding claim 2, Jackson further discloses a first tag end (portion of 502 labeled in Annotated Figure 5A) of the first strand extending from the first self-cinching section away from the first adjustable loop (Figure 5A-B; Paragraph 0068-69).
PNG
media_image1.png
754
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Jackson further discloses a second tag end (portion of 504, labeled in Annotated Figure 5A) of the second strand extending from the second self-cinching section away from the second adjustable loop (Figure 5A-B; Paragraph 0068-69).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood in view of the 112(b) issues above, Jackson further discloses a free loop (518) disposed on the first and second adjustable loops, specifically comprising a first free loop (516) disposed on the first adjustable loop and a second free loop (517) disposed on the second adjustable loop (Figure 5A; Paragraph 0068) (the button 518 comprises apertures serving as loops, and since the button is distinct is from the suture construct, the loops are seen as “free loops”).
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) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson in view of Anderson ‘507 (US 20190008507 A1) and Anderson ‘676 (US 20210259676 A1).
As best understood in view of the 112(b) issues above, regarding claim 16, Jackson discloses the apparatus of claim 3, but fails to explicitly disclose a first shuttling suture disposed on the fixed loop and a second shuttling suture disposed on the first and second adjustable loops.
However, Anderson ‘507 is directed to a suturing apparatus and teaches a shuttling suture (12) disposed on a fixed loop (22) (Figure 2; Paragraph 0049).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Jackson such that a first shuttling suture disposed on the fixed loop, as taught by Anderson ‘507, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to suturing 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 Jackson with the teachings of Anderson ‘507 by incorporating a first shuttling suture disposed on the fixed loop in order to guide the device through tissue (Paragraph 0049).
Further, Anderson ‘676 is directed to a suture apparatus and teaches two shuttling sutures (30, 32) disposed on the first and second adjustable loops (labeled in Annotated Figure 3), respectively (Figure 3; Paragraph 0019).
PNG
media_image2.png
655
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Jackson as modified by Anderson ‘507 to include a second shuttling suture disposed on the first and second adjustable loops, as taught by Anderson ‘676, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to suture 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 Jackson as modified by Anderson ‘507 with the teachings of Anderson ‘676 by incorporating a second shuttling suture disposed on the first and second adjustable loops in order to guide the respective suture ends through the button (Anderson ‘676 Paragraph 0019).
As best understood in view of the 112(b) issues above, regarding claim 17, Jackson discloses the apparatus of claim 3, and further discloses a free loop (518) disposed on the first and second adjustable loops, specifically comprising a first free loop (516) disposed on the first adjustable loop and a second free loop (517) disposed on the second adjustable loop (Figure 5A; Paragraph 0068) (the button 518 comprises apertures serving as loops, and since the button is distinct is from the suture construct, the loops are seen as “free loops”). Jackson fails to explicitly disclose a first shuttling suture disposed on the fixed loop; and a second shuttling suture disposed on the free loop.
However, Anderson ‘507 is directed to a suturing apparatus and teaches a shuttling suture (12) disposed on a fixed loop (22) (Figure 2; Paragraph 0049).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Jackson such that a first shuttling suture disposed on the fixed loop, as taught by Anderson ‘507, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to suturing 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 Jackson with the teachings of Anderson ‘507 by incorporating a first shuttling suture disposed on the fixed loop in order to guide the device through tissue (Paragraph 0049).
Further, Anderson ‘676 is directed to a suture apparatus and teaches two shuttling sutures (30, 32) disposed through two button apertures 14 (Figure 3, Paragraph 0019), which are equivalent to the free loops of Jackson, as 516 and 517 are also apertures of a button.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Jackson as modified by Anderson ‘507 to include a second shuttling suture disposed on the on the free loop, as taught by Anderson ‘676, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to suture 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 Jackson as modified by Anderson ‘507 with the teachings of Anderson ‘676 by incorporating a second shuttling suture disposed on the free loop in order to guide the respective suture ends through the button (Anderson ‘676 Paragraph 0019).
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
/BROOKE LABRANCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771