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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 09/16/2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-6, 8, 10-15, and 17-20 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 09/16/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-20 based upon Lindh in view of Dalessandro as set forth in the last Office action because: First, the declaration compares a value in the claimed range to the presumed value of the prior art. This comparison fails to take into account that the prior art was amended to have the claimed ratios under Gardner V TEC rationale. In order to overcome said rejection, the declaration would need to compare the claimed range to values just above and below the claimed range to show that the claimed range is critical and reduced stress specifically in that range (but not outside of it). Second, the testing results were submitted in color and red specifically was referred to as showing the increased stress. However, the were uploaded in black in white, making it unclear which color is red. Third, the tables submitted are too blurry to read the values making it further unclear which colors are referring to the stress. Should applicant wish to resubmit the declaration, it should be in black and whole with clear tables as well as comparing the claimed range to just outside the claimed range. The Office however notes that a persuasive declaration for said limitation would not result in allowance as CN 212369015, cited in the most recent IDS, expressly discloses the claimed ratio.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6, filed 09/16/2025, with respect to the objection of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6, filed 09/16/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been withdrawn. The Office notes that the 112(b) rejection of claim 20 was not addressed, thus it is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges” and that the claimed second ratio has not been identified as such. While the Office agrees that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable before relying on the determination of the optimum or workable ranges, this is not applicable in this instance as the office has not relied on the determination of the optimum or workable ranges. Instead, the Office has relied on Gardner v. TEC Syst which states “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”. Applicant goes on to argue that the claimed second ratio impacts the performance and reliability of the claimed medical suture citing [0046] of the instant specification. The Office respectfully disagrees. The benefits discussed in [0046] are not directly tied to the ratio of a longitudinal dimension (L2) of each of the plurality of pairs of barbs along the direction of the longitudinal center line to the transverse dimension (LO) of the suture body perpendicular to the direction of the longitudinal center line being between 1.8 to 2.8. That combined with [0013] which states that the claimed second ratio can be 1.8 to 2.8 in some embodiments is not sufficient to show criticality for a ratio of 1.8 to 2.8 (and show that 1.7 or 2.9 would not function in the same manner). Applicant further argues the evidence submitted in the declaration which is not persuasive for the reasons explained above.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4 recites “the barbs” which should be “the plurality of pairs of barbs”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 recites “the barbs” which should be “the plurality of barbs”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4 recites “the barbs” which should be “the plurality of barbs”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 20 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 20 recites “the barb” in lines 1-4. Since there are a plurality of barbs claimed it is unclear which one(s) is being referred to. The Office recommends “each of the plurality of barbs”.
Claim 20 recites “a second ratio of a longitudinal dimension (L2) of each of the plurality of pairs of barbs along the direction of the longitudinal center line to the transverse dimension (LO) of the suture body perpendicular to the direction of the longitudinal center line ranges from 1.8 to 2.8”. which is already recited in independent claim 1 rendering its recitation in claim 20 unclear.
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 1-5, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindh et al. (US 20070257395) in view of Dalessandro et al. (US 20210386423 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Lindh discloses (fig. 3e-3f) a medical suture, comprising: a suture body 25b, wherein the suture body defines a longitudinal center line (see fig. 3e); and a plurality of pairs of barbs arranged at intervals along a direction of the longitudinal center line (see fig. 3e), wherein each pair of barbs is symmetrically arranged on opposite sides of the suture body (see fig. 3e), each of the plurality of pairs of barbs is provided with a proximal end connected with the suture body and a distal end not connected to the suture body (see fig. 3e and [0044]),
Lindh is silent regarding a first ratio of a transverse distance L1 of distal ends of each pair of the barbs along a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal center line to a transverse dimension LO of the suture body perpendicular to the direction of the longitudinal center line ranges from 1.5 to 2.5.
However Dalessandro, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches (fig. 14A-14B) a ratio of a transverse distance (BTTD) of distal ends of each pair of barbs along a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal center line (see fig. 14A-14B) to a transverse dimension (CCD) of the suture body perpendicular to the direction of the longitudinal center line ranges from 1.5 to 2.5 (see [0198]).
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 Lindh to have a first ratio of a transverse distance L1 of distal ends of each pair of the barbs along a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal center line to a transverse dimension LO of the suture body perpendicular to the direction of the longitudinal center line ranges from 1.5 to 2.5 as taught by Dalessandro, for the purpose of ensuring that the barbs will project a sufficient distance from the body for effectively engaging tissue for anchoring the barbed suture in place (see Dalessandro [0193]).
Lindh as modified is silent regarding a second ratio of a longitudinal dimension L2 of each of the plurality of pairs of barbs along the direction of the longitudinal center line to the transverse dimension LO of the suture body perpendicular to the direction of the longitudinal center line ranges from 1.8 to 2.8.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lindh as modified to have a second ratio of a longitudinal dimension L2 of each of the plurality of pairs of barbs along the direction of the longitudinal center line to the transverse dimension LO of the suture body perpendicular to the direction of the longitudinal center line ranges from 1.8 to 2.8 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Lindh as modified would not operate differently with the claimed ratio since barbs would still be able to engage tissue. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratio is within the claimed ranges “in some embodiments” (specification pg. 2 last paragraph).
Regarding claim 2, Lindh as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Lindh further discloses (fig. 3e-3f) a cross section of the suture body in an area without the plurality of pairs of barbs is approximately rectangular (see center of fig, 3f), and the suture body comprises a first end face and a second end face which are oppositely arranged and a third end face and a fourth end face which are oppositely arranged, wherein the barbs are connected onto the first end face and the second end face (see fig. 3f and [0044]), a first width D1 of the first end face ranges from 0.2 mm to 0.6 mm, and a second width D2 of the third end face ranges from 0.2 mm to 0.6 mm (see [0044]).
Regarding claim 3, Lindh as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 2. Lindh further discloses (fig. 3e-3f) the cross section of the suture body in the area without the barbs is approximately square (see fig. 3f).
Regarding claim 4, Lindh as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 2. Lindh further discloses (fig. 3e-3f) a cross section of the suture body in an area with the plurality of pairs of barbs is approximately spindle-shaped (see fig. 3f).
Regarding claim 5, Lindh as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Lindh further discloses (fig. 3e-3f) each of the plurality of pairs of barbs comprises an outside face and an inside face, the outside face extends to the distal end of each of the plurality of pairs of barbs along a first part of the suture body, the inside face extends to the distal end of each of the plurality of pairs of barbs along a second part of the suture body (see fig. 3e).
Regarding claim 13, Lindh as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Lindh further discloses (fig. 3e-3f) each of the plurality of pairs of barbs are equidistantly distributed along an extension direction of the longitudinal center line, and a second distance T between adjacent barbs ranges from 1 mm to 2.5 mm (see fig. 3e and [0044]).
Regarding claim 16, Lindh as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Lindh further discloses (fig. 3e-3f) the suture body forms a transverse center line at a first set position, the transverse center line is perpendicular to the longitudinal center line, and the barbs on two sides of the transverse center line extend towards opposite directions (see fig. 3e).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindh in view of Dalessandro as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20210259686 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Lindh as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Lindh as modified is silent regarding a first distance L3 between the first part and the second part along the direction of the longitudinal center line ranges from 0.4 mm to 1 mm.
However Kim, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches (fig. 4) a distance (b) between a first part and a second part of a barb along the direction of a longitudinal center line ranges from 0.4 mm to 1 mm (see [0074]).
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 Lindh as modified to have a first distance L3 between the first part and the second part along the direction of the longitudinal center line ranges from 0.4 mm to 1 mm as taught by Kim, for the purpose of being able to choose the distance required for the specific surgical use case (see Kim [0074]).
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindh in view of Dalessandro as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Sung et al. (US 20080281357 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Lindh as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 5. Lindh as modified is silent regarding the outside face is approximately an arc face, and the inside face is approximately a straight face.
However Sung, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches (fig. 4) of a plurality of barbs having an outside face the is approximately an arc face, and an inside face that is approximately a straight face (see fig. 5 and [0058]).
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 Lindh as modified to have the outside face of the barb be approximately an arc face, and the inside face of the barb be approximately a straight face as taught by Kim, for the purpose of reducing the insertion forces exerted on the barbs during suturing while maintaining high tissue-holding strength by facilitating capturing a large volume of tissue (see Sung [0059]).
Regarding claim 8, Lindh as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 7. Sung further teaches a first radius of the arc face of the outside face (see annotated fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
333
399
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lindh as modified is silent regarding a first radius of the arc face of the outside face ranges from 1 mm to 2 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lindh as modified to have a first radius of the arc face of the outside face ranges from 1 mm to 2 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Lindh as modified would not operate differently with the claimed radius since barbs would still be able to engage tissue. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the radius is within the claimed ranges “in some embodiments” (specification pg. 3 third paragraph).
Regarding claim 9, Lindh as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 7. Lindh further discloses (fig. 3e-3f) an included angle between an extension face of the inside face and the longitudinal center line ranges from 25 degrees to 45 degrees (see [0044]).
Regarding claims 10-12, Lindh as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 5. Lindh as modified is silent regarding the outside face is approximately an arc face, and the inside face is approximately a straight face.
However Sung, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches (fig. 4) of a plurality of barbs having an outside face the is approximately an arc face, and an inside face that is approximately a straight face (see fig. 5 and [0058]).
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 Lindh as modified to have the outside face of the barb be approximately an arc face, and the inside face of the barb be approximately a straight face as taught by Kim, for the purpose of reducing the insertion forces exerted on the barbs during suturing while maintaining high tissue-holding strength by facilitating capturing a large volume of tissue (see Sung [0059]).
Claim 10, Sung further teaches the outside face and the inside face are in transition through a first arc face (see annotated fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
342
443
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lindh as modified is silent regarding the second radius (r2) of the first arc face ranges from 0.02 mm to 0.05 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lindh as modified to have a second radius of the first arc face ranges from 0.02 mm to 0.05 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Lindh as modified would not operate differently with the claimed radius since barbs would still be able to engage tissue. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the radius is within the claimed ranges “in some embodiments” (specification pg. 3 fifth paragraph).
Claim 11, Sung further teaches the outside face and the suture body are in transition through a second arc face (see annotated fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
369
443
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lindh as modified is silent regarding a third radius (r3) of the second arc face ranges from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lindh as modified to have a third radius of the second arc face ranges from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Lindh as modified would not operate differently with the claimed radius since barbs would still be able to engage tissue. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the radius is within the claimed ranges “in some embodiments” (specification pg. 3 sixth paragraph).
Claim 12, Sung further teaches the inside face and the suture body are in transition through a third arc face (see annotated fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
285
455
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lindh as modified is silent regarding a fourth radius (r4) of the third arc face ranges from 0.02 mm to 0.05 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lindh as modified to have a fourth radius of the third arc face ranges from 0.02 mm to 0.05 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Lindh as modified would not operate differently with the claimed radius since barbs would still be able to engage tissue. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the radius is within the claimed ranges “in some embodiments” (specification pg. 3 seventh paragraph).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindh in view of Dalessandro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu (US 20050267532 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Lindh as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Lindh further discloses (fig. 3e-3f) a second distance T between adjacent barbs ranges from 1 mm to 2.5 mm (see [0044]).
Lindh as modified is silent regarding each of the plurality of barbs are unequidistantly distributed along an extension direction of the longitudinal center line.
However Wu, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches that the barb spacing can vary (see [0048]) which would make them unequidistantly distributed along an extension direction of the longitudinal center line.
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 Lindh as modified to have each of the plurality of pairs of barbs spacing vary which would make them unequidistantly distributed along an extension direction of the longitudinal center line as taught by Wu, for the purpose of being able to choose the spacing required to the specific surgical use case.
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindh in view of Dalessandro as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Morency et al. (US 20030149447 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Lindh as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Lindh as modified is silent regarding each of the plurality of pairs of barbs extend towards the same direction to form a unidirectional barb suture.
However Morency, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches (fig. 1A-1B) the barbs extend towards the same direction to form a unidirectional barb suture (see fig. 1A and [0009]).
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 Lindh as modified to have each of the plurality of pairs of barbs extend towards the same direction to form a unidirectional barb suture as taught by Morency, for the purpose of preventing the suture from moving in an opposite direction (see [0009]) and because Morency teaches this is an alternative to having barbs in two directions (see [0009]-[0010]).
Regarding claim 18, Lindh as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 16. Lindh as modified is silent regarding suture needles respectively arranged at two ends of the medical suture; the medical suture comprising a first barb section and a second barb section with the plurality of pairs of barbs, the first barb section and the second barb section being connected through a transition section; and guide sections located at end parts, the suture needles and the medical suture being in transition through the guide sections.
However Morency teaches (fig. 4) suture needles (110, 111) respectively arranged at two ends of the medical suture 100 (see fig. 4 and [0048]); the medical suture comprising a first barb section (left of 114) and a second barb section (right of 114) with a plurality of barbs (see fig. 4 and [0048]), the first barb section and the second barb section being connected through a transition section (section comprising 114; see fig. 4 and [0048]); and guide sections located at end parts (part between 110/111 and barbs), the suture needles and the medical suture being in transition through the guide sections (see fig. 4 and [0048]).
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 Lindh as modified to have suture needles respectively arranged at two ends of the medical suture; the medical suture comprising a first barb section and a second barb section with a plurality of the barbs, the first barb section and the second barb section being connected through a transition section; and guide sections located at end parts, the suture needles and the medical suture being in transition through the guide sections as taught by Morency, for the purpose of being able to insert the suture through tissue with one side moving in one direction and the other side in another direction (see [0010]).
Claims 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindh in view of Dalessandro as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Morency and Ruff et al. (US 20050267531 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Lindh as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 16. Lindh as modified is silent regarding a suture needle arranged at a first end of the medical suture and a tail member arranged at a second end of the medical suture; the medical suture comprising a barb section located at a middle part and provided with the plurality of pairs of barbs, and guide sections located at end parts, and the suture needle and the medical suture, and the tail member and the medical suture being in transition through the guide section.
However Morency teaches (fig. 1A) a suture needle 29 arranged at a first end of the medical suture and a tail member 27 arranged at a second end of the medical suture (see fig. 1A, [0033] and [0046]; the medical suture comprising a barb section located at a middle part and provided with a plurality of barbs (see fig. 1A and [0033]), and guide sections located at end parts (sections between 29/27 and the barbs; see fig. 1A), and the suture needle and the medical suture, and the tail member and the medical suture being in transition through the guide section (see fig. 1A).
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 Lindh as modified to have a suture needle arranged at a first end of the medical suture and a tail member arranged at a second end of the medical suture; the medical suture comprising a barb section located at a middle part and provided with the plurality of barbs, and guide sections located at end parts, and the suture needle and the medical suture, and the tail member and the medical suture being in transition through the guide section as taught by Morency, for the purpose of preventing the suture from moving in an opposite direction (see [0009]) and because Morency teaches this is an alternative to having barbs in two directions (see [0009]-[0010]).
Lindh as modified is silent regarding the tail member is a ring.
However Ruff, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches a variety of different tail member configurations where one is a loop (see fig. 24-25 and [0044]).
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 Lindh as modified to have the tail member be a ring as taught by Ruff, for the purpose of having a more secure attachment to tissue by being able to thread the suture through the loop.
Regarding claim 19, Lindh as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 17. Lindh further discloses (fig. 3e-3f) a cross section of the suture body in an area without the barbs is approximately rectangular (see center of fig, 3f), and the suture body comprises a first end face and a second end face which are oppositely arranged and a third end face and a fourth end face which are oppositely arranged, wherein the barbs are connected onto the first end face and the second end face (see fig. 3f and [0044]), a first width D1 of the first end face ranges from 0.2 mm to 0.6 mm, and a second width D2 of the third end face ranges from 0.2 mm to 0.6 mm (see [0044]).
Regarding claim 20, Lindh as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 17. Lindh further discloses (fig. 3e-3f) the barb comprises an outside face and an inside face, the outside face extends to the second end of the barb along a first part of the suture body, the inside face extends to the second end of the barb along a second part of the suture body (see fig. 3e).
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 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