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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/14/2026 has been entered.
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 01/14/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1 and 10 have been amended, claims 4, 6, 15, 16, and 19-26 have been cancelled and claim 27 has been added. Thus, claims 1-3, 5, 7-14, 17, 18, and 27 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6-8, filed 01/14/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9, filed 01/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Meybodi.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 17-18, Applicant argues that Meybodi does not have a handle, much less a rotating handle. The Office respectfully disagrees. Meybodi does disclose a handle 32 (a portion to be gripped by a user, see [0010]) and element 32 is designed such that I can be rotated relative to the shaft 36 (36 is rotatable relative to 32, thus 32 can be rotated relative to 36, see [0011] and [0014]) thus meeting the claim language. The Office notes that the claim is an apparatus claim limited by structural limitations, thus the prior art handle need only be capable of rotating relative to the shaft to meet the claim limitations.
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 8 is 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 8 recites “the surgical cable includes a first end at the leading end portion and a second end at the trailing end portion, and wherein the woven shape-retaining wires each extend from the first end to the second end”. However, claim 1 recites that the leading end portion is a monofilament rendering the scope of claim 8 unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 10, 12-14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojciechowicz et al. (US 5,830,234) in view of Goodwin et al. (US 20170209190 A1) Cafferata (US 2,913,015) and Meybodi (US 20090157098 A1).
Regarding claims 10, 17, and 18 Wojciechowicz discloses (fig. 1-9) a suture apparatus system comprising
a suture apparatus comprising:
a surgical cable 12, the surgical cable having a leading end portion (portion of 12 connected to 14; see fig. 1) and a trailing end portion (loop of 12);
a leader 14 connected to the leading end portion of the surgical cable (see fig. 1 and col. 3 ln. 56-67), the leader 14 configured to be advanced around bone portions (see fig. 4 and col. 4 ln., 16-23); and
a twister tool 40 having a distal connecting portion 44 configured to be connected to the leading and trailing end portion of the surgical cable 12 (see fig. 5 and col. 4 ln. 30-42), the twister tool 40 operable to rotate the distal connecting portion to twist the leading and trailing end portions connected thereto and cause the cable to form a twist lock of the cable (see fig. 6-9 and col. 4 ln. 43 – col. 5 ln. 16);
a shaft including the distal connecting portion 44 (see annotated fig. 5 below); and
a handle 42 connected to a distal portion of the shaft opposite the distal connection portion 44 (see fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
431
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wojciechowicz is silent regarding the surgical cable having a plurality of woven shape-retaining wires.
However Goodwin, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches (fig. 3-6) a surgical cable for wrapping around bone (see abstract), wherein the surgical cable 24 having a plurality of woven shape-retaining wires (see fig. 3 and [0045]-[0046]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wojciechowicz to have the surgical cable having a plurality of woven shape-retaining wires as taught by Goodwin, for the purpose of having a surgical cable that is compressible to have a more secure attachment (see Goodwin [0006]).
Wojciechowicz as modified is silent regarding the distal connecting portion of the twister tool including a bore extending therethrough wherein at least one of the leader and the leading end portion of the cable is sized to be advanced at least partially through the bore.
However Cafferata, in the analogous art of wire twisting teaches (fig. 1-3) a twister tool (hand tool) having a distal connecting portion (portion comprising 35) configured to be connected to a leading and trailing end portion of a cable (see fig. 1-3 and col. 2 ln. 32-59), the twister tool operable to rotate the distal connecting portion to twist the leading and trailing end portions connected thereto (see fig. 1-3 and col. 2 ln. 32-59), the distal connecting portion of the twister tool including a bore 37 extending therethrough wherein at least one of the leader and the leading end portion of the cable is sized to be advanced at least partially through the bore 37 (see fig. 1-3 and col. 2 ln. 32-59).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wojciechowicz as modified to have the distal connecting portion of the twister tool including a bore extending therethrough wherein at least one of the leader and the leading end portion of the cable is sized to be advanced at least partially through the bore as taught by Cafferata, for the purpose of being able to grasp the cable portions securely and not risk them falling off the twister tool (see Cafferata col. 2 ln. 32-59).
Wojciechowicz as modified is silent regarding the handle is rotatable with respect to the shaft; the shaft extends through at least a portion of the handle, and wherein the handle includes openings that extend inward from an outer surface of the handle to the shaft; the shaft is rotatable relative to the handle about an axis; and wherein the axis is laterally offset from the distal connecting portion of the twister tool.
However Meybodi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (fig. 1-2) of a twister tool 10 having a shaft 36, distal connecting portion 38 (see [0011] and fig. 1), handle 32 (see [0011]), the handle 32 is rotatable with respect to the shaft 36 (36 is rotatable relative to 32, thus 32 can be rotated relative to 36, see [0011] and [0014]), wherein the shaft 36 extends through at least a portion of the handle 32 (see fig. 2 and [0011]), and wherein the handle 32 includes openings (openings of bore 34) that extend inward from an outer surface of the handle to the shaft (see fig. 2); the shaft 26 is rotatable relative to the handle about an axis; and wherein the axis is laterally offset from the distal connecting portion of the twister tool (see [0011] and [0014]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wojciechowicz as modified to have the handle rotatable with respect to the shaft, the shaft extends through at least a portion of the handle, and wherein the handle includes openings that extend inward from an outer surface of the handle to the shaft; the shaft is rotatable relative to the handle about an axis; and wherein the axis is laterally offset from the distal connecting portion of the twister tool as taught by Meybodi, for the purpose of being able to reduce the time it takes to twist the cable portions together (see Meybodi [0004] and [0015]).
Regarding claim 12, Wojciechowicz as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 10. Wojciechowicz further discloses (fig. 1-9) the woven shape-retaining wires are configured to form a bunched, free end of woven shape- retaining wires upon cutting of the twist lock (see fig. 9 and col. 4 ln. 51 – col. 5 ln. 16).
Regarding claim 13, Wojciechowicz as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 10. Wojciechowicz further discloses (fig. 1-9) the trailing end (loop of 12) portion of the surgical cable includes a loop (see fig. 1) and the distal connecting portion includes a hook 44 configured to engage the loop of the surgical cable trailing end portion (see fig. 5 and col. 4 ln. 29-42).
Regarding claim 14, Wojciechowicz as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 10. Wojciechowicz further discloses (fig. 1-9) the distal connecting portion of the twister tool includes a hook 44 (see fig. 5 and col. 4 ln. 29-42) and at least a portion of the leader 14 is configured to be wrapped around the hook. The language “at least a portion of the leader is configured to be wrapped around the hook” constitutes functional claim language, indicating that the claimed device need only be capable of being used in such a manner. Furthermore, the claim is an apparatus claim, and is to be limited by structural limitations. The Office submits that the device of Wojciechowicz as modified meets the structural limitations of the claim, and at least a portion of the leader is capable of being wrapped around the hook. The leader is smaller than the hook, therefore it is capable of being wrapped around the hook.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojciechowicz in view of Goodwin, Cafferata, and Meybodi as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Wink (US 20200376646 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Wojciechowicz as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 10. Wojciechowicz as modified teaches the woven shape-retaining wires include a metallic material (see Wojciechowicz col. 3 ln. 63 – col. 4 ln. 10 and Goodwin [0071]).
Wojciechowicz as modified is silent as to the metal is material being super annealed.
However Wink, in the analogous art of medical wires for surgical devices, teaches that a wire/multi-strand wire can be formed from a super annealed stainless alloy (see [0024]).
Therefore, the substitution of one known material (super annealed stainless alloy as taught in Wink) for another (metal as taught in Wojciechowicz as modified) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since Wink teaches that a super annealed stainless alloy is a suitable material to form a wire out of and the substitution of material as taught in Wink would have yielded predictable results, namely, a wire in Wojciechowicz as modified that can be twisted. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, and 27 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious (in addition to the other limitations of claim 1): the surgical cable including: a leading end portion including a monofilament; a cable portion including: an intermediate portion including the plurality of woven shape-retaining wires; and a trailing end portion including the plurality of woven shape-retaining wires forming a loop; a first crimp connected to the leading end portion and to the cable portion to secure the leading end portion to the cable portion; and a second crimp connected to the intermediate portion and the trailing end portion to at least partially form the loop.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE H SCHWIKER whose telephone number is (571)272-9503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am-4:00 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.
/KATHERINE H SCHWIKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771