Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/631,927

SUTURE ANCHORING SYSTEMS

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Apr 10, 2024
Priority
Apr 11, 2023 — provisional 63/495,454
Examiner
DAVID, SHAUN L
Art Unit
3771
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Ladera Medical LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 5m
Est. Remaining
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allowance Rate
414 granted / 567 resolved
+3.0% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
619
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
63.8%
+23.8% vs TC avg
§102
17.6%
-22.4% vs TC avg
§112
4.7%
-35.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 567 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 Group I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 04/08/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/08/2026. 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: actuation mechanism in claim 1, which corresponds to a lever or slide as per [0008] of the spec. as filed as the structure for performing the claimed function. 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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0276979 A1 to Sauer et al. (hereinafter “Sauer”). Regarding claim 1, Sauer discloses (see abstract; Figs. 1-29; and [0084]-[0118]) a suture anchor device (10 + 20), comprising: a handle (170/180, Fig. 21) having an actuation mechanism (190, which is a lever and thus corresponds under 112f to the lever as set forth in the claim interpretation section above) (see Fig. 21 and [0108]); a shaft (230) attached to the handle (see Figs. 8/21 and [0094]/[0108]), wherein the shaft has a distal tip (90) which defines a distal opening (91) and a window (92/94) along a side of the shaft such that the distal opening and window are in communication (see Fig. 7 and [0089]-[0092]); a slide element (50 + 60 + 73) translatably positioned upon the shaft (see Figs. 8-12); a tissue securement anchor (80) positioned within the distal opening and defining an anchor lumen (81) which is in communication with the window (see Figs. 1-11); and a wire (70) connected to a distal portion of the slide element and extending into the window and through the anchor lumen such that the wire exits the distal opening and forms a snare loop (see Figs. 1/3/8/13/15 and [0084]-[0102]). Sauer further discloses (claim 2) wherein the handle defines a tapered interface surface (at 251, Fig. 21) where the shaft is attached to the handle (see Figs. 21-22 and [0108]-[0109]); (claim 3) wherein the shaft defines a cross-sectional area which is keyed to correspond to a channel defined along the slide element (see Figs. 10-15); (claim 4) wherein the slide element defines a ring-tab (50) (see Fig. 1); (claim 5) wherein the slide element further comprises a projection (64/73) for maintaining a position of the slide element upon the shaft (see Fig. 11); (claim 6) wherein the window is defined in proximity to the distal opening (see Figs. 6-7); (claim 7) wherein the wire is proximally retractable via the slide element such that the snare loop reduces in size and passes proximally through the distal opening, the anchor lumen, and the window (see Figs. 12-17 and [0099]-[0104]); (claim 8) further comprising one or more lengths of suture (146) which are positionable within the snare loop (see Fig. 16 and [0103]); and (claim 9) wherein the tissue securement anchor comprises a ferrule which is deformable to collapse (see Fig. 20 and [0107]). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see the attached PTO-892 Notice of References cited for additional relevant prior art disclosing devices having snares which are configured to grasp sutures. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 10, 2024
Application Filed
May 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12636035
TISSUE-REMOVING CATHETHER WITH FLEXIBLE DISTAL TIP
2y 0m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12629153
CINCH LIGATING ASSEMBLY
2y 11m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12616458
ADHESIVE MATERIAL INJECTION DEVICE
2y 8m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12605247
HANDLE LOCKING MECHANISMS FOR A TRANSCATHETER DELIVERY SYSTEM
3y 9m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12605156
TISSUE CLAMP AND IMPLANTATION METHOD
2y 9m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+19.3%)
3y 7m (~1y 5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 567 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month