DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a Response to Applicant’s Arguments and Amendment submitted 07/01/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9-14, and 19-222 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2012/0191134 A1 to Martin (hereinafter “Martin”) (previously of record).
Regarding claim 1, Martin discloses (see abstract; Figs. 1-11; Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 6 below; and [0019]-[0033]) a surgical anchor (2), comprising: an anchor body (22 + 24, Fig. 3, see [0020]), the anchor body extends along a central longitudinal anchor body axis ("CA", see Fig. 7 and [0024], also shown as dashed line in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 6 below), the anchor body comprising a slanted surface within the anchor body, the slanted surface is asymmetric relative to the central longitudinal anchor body axis (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 6 below); and an elongated flexible member (10) extending away from the anchor body (see Figs. 6/9); wherein the surgical anchor is configured such that exerting a pull force on the elongated flexible member in a direction substantially aligned with the central longitudinal anchor body axis (indicated by double arrows in Figs. 9-10) imparts a force on the anchor body that includes a rotational force component ("moment", [0026]/[0033]) that is transverse to the central longitudinal anchor body axis through interaction of the elongated flexible member with the slanted surface, the positioning and orientation of the slanted surface within the anchor body causing the rotational force component causing the anchor body to rotate (see Figs. 6, 9-11 and [0026]/[0033], it is apparent that proximally tensioning suture 10 in Fig. 6 will cause the suture 10 to interact with the slanted surface and due to the positioning and orientation of said slanted surface, it will cause the anchor body to rotate via a rotational force component).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
1178
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Martin further discloses (claim 2) an elastic member ("mechanism" including movable/deformable parts, [0024]) associated with the anchor body, the elongated flexible member associated with the elastic member (see [0024]); (claim 3) wherein the anchor body comprises the slanted surface (surface in Fig. 6 disposed within recess 36a around which suture 10 loops) that is slanted relative to the central longitudinal anchor body axis (as shown in Fig. 6), wherein exerting the pull force on the elongated flexible member imparts the force on the anchor body including the rotational force component through interaction of the elongated flexible member with the slanted surface (see Figs. 6/9/10 and [0024]/[0026]/[0033]); (claim 5) wherein the central longitudinal anchor body axis is a longitudinal anchor body axis (see Fig. 7 and [0024]); (claim 6) wherein the slanted surface is a surface of an eyelet extending through the anchor body (see Fig. 6); (claim 9) wherein the slanted surface extends between a distal end and a proximal end (see Fig. 6), wherein the anchor body further comprises at least one proximal bone engagement feature (32A) located on the same side of the anchor body as the distal end of the slanted surface (see Fig. 6 and [0024]); (claim 10) wherein the surgical anchor is configured such that exerting the pull force on the elongated flexible member rotates the proximal bone engagement feature to an engagement position (see Figs. 9-11 and [0026]); (claim 11) wherein the anchor body further comprises a post (22) configured to connect the anchor body to an insertion instrument (8) (see [0020]), wherein the proximal bone engagement feature is located on a proximal end of the post (see Figs. 1/6/7); (claim 12) wherein the proximal end of the post is sloped in an opposite direction to the slanted surface (see Fig. 6); (claim 13) wherein the anchor body further comprises a circumferential engagement feature (distal portion 24's outer circumferential surface) extending around at least a portion of the anchor body (see Fig. 3), wherein the surgical anchor is configured such that exerting the pull force on the elongated flexible member rotates the circumferential engagement feature to an engagement position (see [0026], where distal portion 24 is rotated counter-clockwise to engage the sidewall of the bone hole); (claim 14) wherein the anchor body further comprises a distal engagement feature (24) at a distal end of the anchor body (see Fig. 3), wherein the surgical anchor is configured such that exerting the pull force on the elongated flexible member rotates the distal engagement feature to an engagement position (see [0026]); (claim 19) wherein the anchor body comprises a slanted surface that is slanted relative to the central longitudinal anchor body axis, wherein exerting the pull force on the elongated flexible member imparts the force on the anchor body including the rotational force component through interaction of the elongated flexible member with the slanted surface (see Figs. 6 & 9-11 and [0026]/[0033]); (claim 20) wherein the anchor body further comprises a proximal bone engagement (32A) on a sloped proximal end of the anchor body (see Fig. 6); (claim 21) wherein the anchor body comprises an eyelet (36A) including slanted surface that is slanted relative to the central longitudinal anchor body axis (surface in Fig. 6 disposed within recess 36a around which suture 10 loops), wherein the anchor body further comprises a proximal bone engagement (32A) on a sloped proximal end of the anchor body; wherein the sloped proximal end is sloped in an opposite direction to the slanted surface (see Fig. 6); and (claim 22) wherein the central longitudinal body axis extends through the slanted surface (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 6 above).
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) 7-8 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of US 2012/0290003 A1 to Dreyfuss (hereinafter “Dreyfuss”) (previously of record).
Martin discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above, however, with respect to claims 7-8 and 15-17, Martin fails to specifically disclose wherein the elastic member and the elongated flexible member extend through the eyelet; wherein the elongated flexible member wraps around the slanted surface; wherein the elongated flexible member is fixed to the elastic member in a non-sliding fashion; wherein the elongated flexible member is tied around a central portion of the elastic member; and wherein the elastic member is an elastic mesh. Dreyfuss discloses (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; and [0013]-[0039]), in the same field of endeavor, a surgical anchor (200, Figs. 2-3) comprising an anchor body (10), an elongated flexible member (50) extending away from the anchor body, and an elastic member (60) associated with the anchor body and associated with the elongated flexible member (see Figs. 2-3 and [0013]-[0032]), and further discloses wherein the elastic member and the elongated flexible member extend through the eyelet (see Figs. 2-3); wherein the elongated flexible member wraps around the slanted surface (surface of post 30) wherein the elongated flexible member is fixed to the elastic member in a non-sliding fashion (see Fig. 3 and [0031]; wherein the elongated flexible member is tied around a central portion of the elastic member (see Fig. 3 and [0031]); wherein the elastic member is an elastic mesh (see [0013]/[0034]/[0035]) for the purpose of locking the flexible elongate member (aka, suture) within the suture anchor so that it is not able to freely slide (see [0013]/[0014]/[0022]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Martin's anchor with the elastic member taught by Dreyfuss in order to lock the flexible elongate member (aka, suture) within the suture anchor so that it is not able to freely slide.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Dreyfuss as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of US 2018/0078255 A1 to Dumanian (hereinafter “Dumanian”) (previously of record)
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Martin and Dreyfuss disclose the invention substantially as claimed above, including wherein Dreyfuss discloses that the elastic member (suture 60) can be any flexible strand such as a flexible suture strand or suture tape, among others (see [0013]), but the combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the elastic mesh is a matrix of knitted fibers with a porosity range of approximately 8um-600um. Dumanian discloses (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; and [0016]-[0030]), in the same field of endeavor, a suture (104) comprising an elastic mesh which is a matrix of knitted fibers (see [0016]) with a porosity range of approximately 8um-600um (see [0028]-[0030]) for the purpose of facilitating and allowing tissue in-growth and integration through the pores when in the body, increasing strength and efficacy of the device while decreasing irritation, inflammation, and local tissue necrosis (see [0030]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination's anchor with the porous mesh matrix as taught by Dumanian in order to facilitate and allow tissue in-growth and integration through the pores when in the body, increasing strength and efficacy of the device while decreasing irritation, inflammation, and local tissue necrosis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 5-22 as amended have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, it is readily apparent from the disclosure of Martin and in particular Fig. 6 that proximally tensioning suture 10 in Fig. 6 will cause the suture 10 to interact with the slanted surface and due to the positioning and orientation of said slanted surface, it will cause the anchor body to rotate via a rotational force component. As set forth by [0026], suture tension causes a moment to be applied to the suture anchor, which causes the anchor to tilt. That moment is clearly a result of the positioning and orientation of the slanted surface in Fig. 6, and how the suture interacts with the slanted surface. It is not merely a result of only the eccentric positioning of the suture channel, as Applicant posits, because omission of the slanted surface in Fig. 6 would not result in suture tension applying a rotational tilt to the anchor. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHAUN L DAVID whose telephone number is (571)270-5263. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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.
/SHAUN L DAVID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights