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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 14th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The claims filed on July 14th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 17- 21, 24, 28- 29, 31- 33, and 35 are pending in the application. The amendments to claims 31 and 35 overcomes the previous 112(b) rejection and the cancellation of claims 30 and 34 resolves the previous 112(a) rejection and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Interview Summary
A call was made on July 22nd, 2026 to Amy Embert regarding an examiner’s amendment and e-terminal disclaimer to overcome the prior art rejection of Vargas (US 2015/0250470) in view of Bolduc (US 2005/0187613) through the inclusion of the subject matter of claim 9. The examiner’s amendment was rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Examiner’s Note: The limitation “frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors” is herein considered to be what is set forth in applicant’s specification, Paragraphs 0063 and 0064, wherein the suture anchors are formed on an anchor strip and can be separated during use.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 7, 17- 21, 24, and 28- 35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Vargas (US 2015/0250470) has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s arguments, specifically that Vargas does not teach each suture anchor of the plurality being connected to an adjacent suture anchor via a tab with no intervening joints or articulating pieces.
Regarding claim 9, it is noted that no prior art reads on the limitation of claim 9.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 17- 21, 24, 28- 29, 31- 33, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vargas (US 2015/0250470) in view of Bolduc et al. (US 2005/0187613).
Regarding claim 1, Vargas teaches a suture anchor system (Fig. 14, Paragraph 0144), comprising:
A hypodermic needle (needle 1110)(According to dictionary.com, a hypodermic needle is defined as “a hollow needle used to inject solutions subcutaneously”. Vargas teaches in Paragraph 0144 that the needle holds a suture anchor, a pushrod, and other features, which requires for the needle to be hollow. Vargas also shows in Fig. 14 that the needle delivers the suture anchor subcutaneously (see annotated Fig. 14 below), which accomplishes the function of the hypodermic needle as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, Vargas teaches a hypodermic needle.);
A plurality of suture anchors (suture anchors 1140)(Paragraph 0144)(Fig. 14);
A suture (1130)(Fig. 14) connected to the plurality of suture anchors (Paragraph 0144);
A drive hub (pushrod slider 1121, pushrod pawl 1122), the drive hub including a coupling (pushrod pawl 1122) configured to couple to a second end of a pusher (Paragraph 0146)(see annotated Fig. 14 below);
the pusher (pushrod 1120)(Fig. 14); and
A handle (1116, 1125, 1150)(Fig. 14) configured to house the drive hub and the hypodermic needle (Paragraph 0146, Paragraph 0144).
PNG
media_image1.png
552
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
573
1122
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Vargas does not teach in this embodiment a frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors, a proximal end of the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors including a connector end configured to connect to a first end of a pusher, each suture anchor of the plurality being connected to an adjacent suture anchor via a tab with no intervening joints or articulating pieces, wherein a notch extends approximately orthogonally between two adjacent suture anchors and a nadir of the notch is proximate to the tab and separation of a first suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors from a second suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors is achieved by breaking the tab.
Vargas teaches in a separate embodiment a frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors (270,280)(Fig. 2I)(Paragraphs 0117- 0118), the plurality of suture anchors including a connector end (frangible connector 288) configured to connect to a first end of a pusher (pushrod 250)(Paragraph 0118)(see annotated Fig. 2I below).
PNG
media_image3.png
359
838
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lockable suture anchors of the suture anchor system and the connection to the pushrod as taught by Vargas in the first embodiment to have the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors and the connector as taught by Vargas in the second embodiment since Vargas teaches that the frangible connectors allow for rotation or break depending on what is desired (Paragraph 0117).
Vargas does not teach in the current embodiment wherein each suture anchor of the plurality being connected to an adjacent suture anchor via a tab with no intervening joints or articulating pieces, wherein a notch extends approximately orthogonally between two adjacent suture anchors and a nadir of the notch is proximate to the tab and separation of a first suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors from a second suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors is achieved by breaking the tab.
Vargas teaches a suture anchor system (abstract)(Figs. 8A-8D)(Paragraphs 0104- 0105) comprising: a rigid one- piece structure (suture anchors 201a and 201b, connectors 202)(As Vargas teaches in Paragraph 0104 that suture anchors connected through a frangible connection can be formed from a single piece of material, such as stainless steel, then the suture anchors form a rigid one-piece structure.) comprising: a first suture anchor (201a), a second suture anchor (201a) frangibly connected to the first suture anchor (Paragraphs 0104- 0105) via a tab (frangible connector 202), wherein a notch extends approximately orthogonally between two adjacent suture anchors and a nadir of the notch is proximate to the tab (see annotated Fig. 8A below).
PNG
media_image4.png
136
618
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
203
618
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding separation of a first suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors from a second suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors is achieved by breaking the tab, in Paragraphs 0104 and 0105, Vargas teaches that the frangible connectors 202 has a force enacted upon it where it experiences strain until the point of fracture. Therefore the separation of the adjacent suture anchors occurs when the tab is broken.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lockable suture anchors of the suture anchor system of the combination to have the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors and the frangible connector as a tab as taught by Vargas in the third embodiment since Vargas teaches that the frangible connectors allow for rotation or break depending on what is desired (Paragraphs 0104- 0105).
Vargas does not teach each suture anchor of the plurality being connected to an adjacent suture anchor via a tab with no intervening joints or articulating pieces.
Bolduc (Bolduc et al.) teaches an anchor (fastener 28)(Figs. 18A- 18B) and a tether element structure (142) that is connected to the anchor with a frangible connection, wherein the adjacent elements are connected via a tab (area of weakness 144) with no intervening joints or articulating pieces (Paragraph 0134)(see annotated Fig. 18A below).
PNG
media_image6.png
304
475
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tab of the frangible connection as taught by Vargas to be the tab of the frangible connection as taught by Bolduc for the purpose of providing a breaking point between two elements (Vargas, 0104- 0105; Bolduc, Paragraph 0134). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one tab of a frangible connection for another because both frangible tabs are disclosed as equivalent structures for providing a frangible breaking point between two elements (Vargas, 0104- 0105; Bolduc, Paragraph 0134) and substitution of one for the other would have resulted in the predictable result of having a frangible breaking point to disconnect two elements during a procedure (Vargas, 0104- 0105; Bolduc, Paragraph 0134). KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Vargas and Bolduc make obvious the device as discussed above for claim 1.
Vargas further teaches wherein the hypodermic needle is a hollow hypodermic needle (see Fig. 14)(Paragraph 0144) comprising an endoscopic needle (In Paragraph 0011, Vargas teaches that the delivery system “may fit within the instrument channel or lumen of an endoscope”, therefore the needle, which is a part of the delivery system, is considered an endoscopic needle.).
Regarding claim 3, Vargas and Bolduc make obvious the device as discussed above for claim 2.
The combination further teaches wherein the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors is configured to be positioned inside the hollow hypodermic needle (Paragraph 0144).
Regarding claim 4, Vargas and Bolduc make obvious the device as discussed above for claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the drive hub is configured to drive the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors into a subject’s flesh (Paragraph 0146 teaches that the push rod 1120 advances the suture anchor through the device, therefore, as the device is taught to be used on a subject (Paragraph 0003 and 0010), it would drive the suture anchor through the subject’s flesh.).
Regarding claim 7, Vargas and Bolduc make obvious the device as discussed above for claim 1.
Vargas further teaches wherein the suture anchor system is configured to insert the plurality of suture anchors into the subject’s flesh as needed to suture an opening in the subject’s flesh (Paragraphs 0138, 0144).
Regarding claim 17, Vargas and Bolduc make obvious the device as discussed above for claim 1.
Vargas further teaches wherein the connector end connects to the pusher via a mechanical coupling (In Paragraph 0117, Vargas teaches that a frangible connector is a mechanical coupling, therefore as the connector end is frangibly connected to the pusher (Paragraph 0118), it is connected via a mechanical coupling).
Regarding claim 18, Vargas teaches a device (Fig. 2I)(Paragraph 0117) comprising:
A frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors (270, 280)(Paragraph 0118); and
A connector end (frangible connector 288) extending from a proximal end of the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors (see annotated Fig. 2I below), the connector end being configured to connect to a pusher (pushrod 250) configured to advance the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors through a distal end of a hypodermic needle (delivery needle 210) of a suture anchor system (delivery needle 210, pushrod 250)(Paragraph 0117- 0118).
PNG
media_image7.png
346
838
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Vargas does not teach in this embodiment wherein each suture anchor of the plurality being connected to an adjacent suture anchor via a tab with no intervening joints or articulating pieces, wherein a notch extends approximately orthogonally between two adjacent suture anchors and a nadir of the notch is proximate to the tab and separation of a first suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors from a second suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors is achieved by breaking the tab.
Vargas teaches a suture anchor system (abstract)(Figs. 8A-8D)(Paragraphs 0104- 0105) comprising: a rigid one- piece structure (suture anchors 201a and 201b, connectors 202)(As Vargas teaches in Paragraph 0104 that suture anchors connected through a frangible connection can be formed from a single piece of material, such as stainless steel, then the suture anchors form a rigid one-piece structure.) comprising: a first suture anchor (201a), a second suture anchor (201a) frangibly connected to the first suture anchor (Paragraphs 0104- 0105) via a tab (frangible connector 202), wherein a notch extends approximately orthogonally between two adjacent suture anchors and a nadir of the notch is proximate to the tab (see annotated Fig. 8A below).
PNG
media_image4.png
136
618
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
203
618
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding separation of a first suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors from a second suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors is achieved by breaking the tab, in Paragraphs 0104 and 0105, Vargas teaches that the frangible connectors 202 has a force enacted upon it where it experiences strain until the point of fracture. Therefore the separation of the adjacent suture anchors occurs when the tab is broken.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lockable suture anchors of the suture anchor system and the connection to the pushrod as taught by Vargas in the first embodiment to have the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors and the frangible connector as a tab as taught by Vargas in the second embodiment since Vargas teaches that the frangible connectors allow for rotation or break depending on what is desired (Paragraphs 0104- 0105).
Vargas does not teach each suture anchor of the plurality being connected to an adjacent suture anchor via a tab with no intervening joints or articulating pieces.
Bolduc (Bolduc et al.) teaches an anchor (fastener 28)(Figs. 18A- 18B) and a tether element structure (142) that is connected to the anchor with a frangible connection, wherein the adjacent elements are connected via a tab (area of weakness 144) with no intervening joints or articulating pieces (Paragraph 0134)(see annotated Fig. 18A below).
PNG
media_image6.png
304
475
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tab of the frangible connection as taught by Vargas to be the tab of the frangible connection as taught by Bolduc for the purpose of providing a breaking point between two elements (Vargas, 0104- 0105; Bolduc, Paragraph 0134). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one tab of a frangible connection for another because both frangible tabs are disclosed as equivalent structures for providing a frangible breaking point between two elements (Vargas, 0104- 0105; Bolduc, Paragraph 0134) and substitution of one for the other would have resulted in the predictable result of having a frangible breaking point to disconnect two elements during a procedure (Vargas, 0104- 0105; Bolduc, Paragraph 0134). KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 19, Vargas and Bolduc make obvious the device as discussed above for claim 18.
Vargas further teaches wherein the hypodermic needle (delivery needle 210) is a hollow hypodermic needle (see Fig. 2I)(Paragraph 0117) comprising an endoscopic needle (In Paragraph 0011, Vargas teaches that the delivery system “may fit within the instrument channel or lumen of an endoscope”, therefore the needle, which is a part of the delivery system, is considered an endoscopic needle.).
Regarding claim 20, Vargas and Bolduc make obvious the device as discussed above for claim 19.
Vargas further teaches wherein the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors (270, 280) is configured to be positioned inside the hollow hypodermic needle (delivery needle 210)(Paragraph 0117).
Regarding claim 21, Vargas and Bolduc make obvious the device as discussed above for claim 18.
The combination does not teach in the current embodiment a drive hub configured to drive the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors into a subject’s flesh.
Vargas teaches in a different embodiment a suture anchor system (Fig. 14, Paragraph 0144), comprising: a needle (1110), a plurality of suture anchors (suture anchors 1140), a suture (1130)(Fig. 14) connected to the plurality of suture anchors (Paragraph 0144), a drive hub (pushrod slider 1121, pushrod pawl 1122), a pusher (pushrod 1120)(Fig. 14); and a handle (1116, 1125, 1150)(Fig. 14) configured to allow manual operation of the suture anchor system (Paragraph 0146).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of the combination to have a drive hub as taught by the second embodiment of Vargas, since Vargas teaches that the drive hub drives the plurality of suture anchors and operates the device (Paragraphs 0144, 0146, and 0148).
Regarding claim 24, Vargas and Bolduc make obvious as discussed above for claim 18.
Vargas further teaches wherein the suture anchor system is configured to insert the plurality of suture anchors into the subject’s flesh as needed to suture an opening in the subject’s flesh (Paragraphs 0138 and 0144).
Regarding claim 28 and 32, Vargas and Bolduc make obvious the device as discussed above for claims 1 and 18.
Vargas further teaches wherein the notch is V-shaped (see annotated Fig. 8A below).
PNG
media_image8.png
214
618
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 29 and 33, Vargas and Bolduc make obvious the device as discussed above for claims 1 and 18.
Vargas further teaches wherein a portion of a proximal end of the first suture anchor is oriented at a first angle, thereby forming a first side of the notch and a portion of a distal end of the second suture anchor is oriented at a second angle, thereby forming a second side of the notch (Paragraph 0103)(see annotated Fig. 8A below).
PNG
media_image9.png
328
618
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 31, Vargas and Bolduc make obvious the device as discussed above for claim 1.
Vargas further teaches the system further comprising: a suture (1130)(Fig. 14) extending through, and in communication with, each suture anchor of the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors (Paragraph 0144).
Regarding wherein pulling the suture taut acts to pull the first suture anchor toward the second suture anchor, thereby breaking the tab, as discussed above, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lockable suture anchors of the suture anchor system to have the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors and the frangible connector as a tab as taught by Vargas in the second embodiment since Vargas teaches that the frangible connectors allow for rotation or break depending on what is desired (Paragraphs 0104- 0105). As Vargas teaches that tension on the suture causes the connection to break (Paragraph 0105) and bends the first suture anchor toward the second suture anchor (see Fig. 8D), Vargas teaches this limitation.
Regarding claim 35, Vargas and Bolduc make obvious the device as discussed above for claim 18.
The combination does not teach the system further comprising: a suture extending through, and in communication with, each suture anchor of the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors, wherein pulling the suture taut acts to pull the first suture anchor toward the second suture anchor, thereby breaking the tab.
Vargas teaches in a different embodiment a suture anchor system (Fig. 14, Paragraph 0144), comprising: a needle (1110), a plurality of suture anchors (suture anchors 1140), a suture (1130)(Fig. 14) extending through, and in communication with, each suture anchor of the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors (Paragraph 0144), a drive hub (pushrod slider 1121, pushrod pawl 1122), a pusher (pushrod 1120)(Fig. 14); and a handle (1116, 1125, 1150)(Fig. 14) configured to allow manual operation of the suture anchor system (Paragraph 0146).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device as taught by the combination to have a suture extending through, and in communication with, each suture anchor of the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors as taught by the third embodiment of Vargas, since Vargas teaches that the suture is part of a delivery system that aids in operating the device (Paragraphs 0144, 0146, and 0148).
Regarding wherein pulling the suture taut acts to pull the first suture anchor toward the second suture anchor, thereby breaking the tab, as discussed above, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lockable suture anchors of the suture anchor system to have the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors and the frangible connector as a tab as taught by Vargas in the second embodiment since Vargas teaches that the frangible connectors allow for rotation or break depending on what is desired (Paragraphs 0104- 0105). As Vargas teaches that tension on the suture causes the connection to break (Paragraph 0105) and bends the first suture anchor toward the second suture anchor (see Fig. 8D), Vargas teaches this limitation.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1,9, 17- 21, 24- 25, 28- 30, and 32- 33 over claim 1, 8, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12178424 (‘424) in view of Vargas (US 2015/0250470) has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s arguments, specifically that Vargas does not teach each suture anchor of the plurality being connected to an adjacent suture anchor via a tab with no intervening joints or articulating pieces.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1, 7, 9, 17- 18, 28- 29 and 32-33 over claims 1 and 9- 10 of copending Application No. 18/121,949 (‘949) in view of Vargas (US 2015/0250470) has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s arguments, specifically that Vargas does not teach each suture anchor of the plurality being connected to an adjacent suture anchor via a tab with no intervening joints or articulating pieces.
Claims 1, 9, 17- 21, 24- 25, 28-29, and 32-33 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 8, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12178424 (‘424) in view of Vargas (US 2015/0250470) and in view of Bolduc et al. (US 2005/0187613).
Regarding claim 1, ‘424 claims a suture anchor system, comprising: a hypodermic needle (claim 1 of ‘424); an anchor strip of linear disposition formed from a single continuous section of material, comprising: a plurality of suture anchors with breakaway sections between adjacent suture anchors; a suture connected to the plurality of suture anchors (claim 1 of ‘424)( Applicant sets forth in their application that the frangibly assembly plurality of suture anchors are a “molded strip of anchors” (Paragraph 0063) and that they have notches between them (Paragraph 0072). Therefore, as the plurality of suture anchors set forth in ‘424 is a molded strip of anchors with notches, or breakaway sections, between them, the plurality of suture anchors are considered to be a frangibly assembly plurality of suture anchors as required by the pending application and a single monolithically manufacture structure.); a drive hub, configured to advance the suture anchors out of the hypodermic needle when pushed (claim 1 of ‘424); and a handle configured to house the drive hub and hypodermic needle (claim 8 of ‘424, which depends from claim 1 of ‘424).
‘424 does not claim a pusher, the drive hub including a coupling configured to couple to a second end of the pusher, or wherein each suture anchor of the plurality being connected to an adjacent suture anchor via a tab with no intervening joints or articulating pieces, wherein a notch extends approximately orthogonally between two adjacent suture anchors and a nadir of the notch is proximate to the tab and separation of a first suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors from a second suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors is achieved by breaking the tab.
Vargas teaches a device (Fig. 2I)(Paragraph 0117) comprising: a frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors (270, 280)(Paragraph 0118) and a connector end (frangible connector 288) extending from a proximal end of the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors (see annotated Fig. 2I below), the connector end being configured to connect to a pusher (pushrod 250) configured to advance the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors through a hypodermic needle (delivery needle 210) of a suture anchor system (delivery needle 210, pushrod 250)(Paragraph 0117- 0118).
PNG
media_image7.png
346
838
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system as claimed by ‘424 to have a pusher, a proximal end of the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors including a connector end configured to connect to a first end of a pusher, and the drive hub including a coupling configured to couple to a second end of the pusher as taught by Vargas since Vargas teaches that the frangible connectors allow for rotation or break depending on what is desired and the pusher allows for the device to be operated (Paragraphs 0104- 0105 and 0117).
The combination of ‘424 and the first embodiment of Vargas does not claim wherein each suture anchor of the plurality being connected to an adjacent suture anchor via a tab with no intervening joints or articulating pieces, wherein a notch extends approximately orthogonally between two adjacent suture anchors and a nadir of the notch is proximate to the tab and separation of a first suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors from a second suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors is achieved by breaking the tab.
Vargas teaches a suture anchor system (abstract)(Figs. 8A-8D)(Paragraphs 0104- 0105) comprising: a rigid one- piece structure (suture anchors 201a and 201b, connectors 202)(As Vargas teaches in Paragraph 0104 that suture anchors connected through a frangible connection can be formed from a single piece of material, such as stainless steel, then the suture anchors form a rigid one-piece structure.) comprising: a first suture anchor (201a), a second suture anchor (201a) frangibly connected to the first suture anchor (Paragraphs 0104- 0105) via a tab (frangible connector 202), wherein a notch extends approximately orthogonally between two adjacent suture anchors and a nadir of the notch is proximate to the tab (see annotated Fig. 8A below).
PNG
media_image4.png
136
618
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
203
618
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding separation of a first suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors from a second suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors is achieved by breaking the tab, in Paragraphs 0104 and 0105, Vargas teaches that the frangible connectors 202 has a force enacted upon it where it experiences strain until the point of fracture. Therefore the separation of the adjacent suture anchors occurs when the tab is broken.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lockable suture anchors of the suture anchor system of the combination to have the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors and the frangible connector as a tab as taught by Vargas in the third embodiment since Vargas teaches that the frangible connectors allow for rotation or break depending on what is desired (Paragraphs 0104- 0105).
The combination of ‘424 and Vargas does not claim each suture anchor of the plurality being connected to an adjacent suture anchor via a tab with no intervening joints or articulating pieces.
Bolduc (Bolduc et al.) teaches an anchor (fastener 28)(Figs. 18A- 18B) and a tether element structure (142) that is connected to the anchor with a frangible connection, wherein the adjacent elements are connected via a tab (area of weakness 144) with no intervening joints or articulating pieces (Paragraph 0134)(see annotated Fig. 18A below).
PNG
media_image6.png
304
475
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tab of the frangible connection as claimed by the combination to be the tab of the frangible connection as taught by Bolduc for the purpose of providing a breaking point between two elements (Vargas, 0104- 0105; Bolduc, Paragraph 0134). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one tab of a frangible connection for another because both frangible tabs are disclosed as equivalent structures for providing a frangible breaking point between two elements (Vargas, 0104- 0105; Bolduc, Paragraph 0134) and substitution of one for the other would have resulted in the predictable result of having a frangible breaking point to disconnect two elements during a procedure (Vargas, 0104- 0105; Bolduc, Paragraph 0134). KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, ‘424, Vargas, and Bolduc claim the system of claim 1, as discussed above.
‘424 further claims a ball plunger that protrudes from the handle and allows manual operation of the suture anchor system (claim 1 of ‘424) and wherein the handle is configured to house the drive hub and hypodermic needle (claim 8 of ‘424).
Regarding claim 17, ‘424, Vargas, and Bolduc claim the system of claim 1, as discussed above.
The combination of ‘424 and Vargas further claims wherein the connector end connects to the pusher via a mechanical coupling (In Paragraph 0117, Vargas teaches that a frangible connector is a mechanical coupling, therefore as the connector end is frangibly connected to the pusher (Paragraph 0118), it is connected via a mechanical coupling)(As discussed above, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lockable suture anchors of the suture anchor system and the connection to the pushrod as taught by Vargas in the first embodiment to have the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors and the connector as taught by Vargas in the second embodiment since Vargas teaches that the frangible connectors allow for rotation or break depending on what is desired (Paragraphs 0104- 0105 and 0117)).
Regarding claim 18, ‘424 claims a device (claim 1 of ‘424) comprising: an anchor strip of linear disposition formed from a single continuous section of material, comprising: a plurality of suture anchors with breakaway sections between adjacent suture anchors; a suture connected to the plurality of suture anchors (claim 1 of ‘424)(Applicant sets forth in their application that the frangibly assembly plurality of suture anchors are a “molded strip of anchors” (Paragraph 0063) and that they have notches between them (Paragraph 0072). Therefore, as the plurality of suture anchors set forth in ‘424 is a molded strip of anchors with notches, or breakaway sections, between them, the plurality of suture anchors are considered to be a frangibly assembly plurality of suture anchors as required by the pending application and the assembly is a single monolithically manufactured structure.) and a hypodermic needle of a suture anchor system (claim 1 of ‘424).
‘424 does not claim a connector end extending from a proximal end of the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors, the connector end being configured to connect to a pusher configured to advance the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors through the hypodermic needle or wherein each suture anchor of the plurality being connected to an adjacent suture anchor via a tab with no intervening joints or articulating pieces, wherein a notch extends approximately orthogonally between two adjacent suture anchors and a nadir of the notch is proximate to the tab and separation of a first suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors from a second suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors is achieved by breaking the tab.
Vargas teaches a device (Fig. 2I)(Paragraph 0117) comprising: a frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors (270, 280)(Paragraph 0118) and a connector end (frangible connector 288) extending from a proximal end of the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors (see annotated Fig. 2I below), the connector end being configured to connect to a pusher (pushrod 250) configured to advance the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors through a hypodermic needle (delivery needle 210) of a suture anchor system (delivery needle 210, pushrod 250)(Paragraph 0117- 0118).
PNG
media_image7.png
346
838
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system as claimed by ‘424 to have a pusher, a proximal end of the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors including a connector end configured to connect to a first end of a pusher, and the drive hub including a coupling configured to couple to a second end of the pusher as taught by Vargas since Vargas teaches that the frangible connectors allow for rotation or break depending on what is desired and the pusher allows for the device to be operated (Paragraphs 0104- 0105 and 0117).
The combination of ‘424 and the first embodiment of Vargas does not claim wherein each suture anchor of the plurality being connected to an adjacent suture anchor via a tab with no intervening joints or articulating pieces, wherein a notch extends approximately orthogonally between two adjacent suture anchors and a nadir of the notch is proximate to the tab and separation of a first suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors from a second suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors is achieved by breaking the tab.
Vargas teaches a suture anchor system (abstract)(Figs. 8A-8D)(Paragraphs 0104- 0105) comprising: a rigid one- piece structure (suture anchors 201a and 201b, connectors 202)(As Vargas teaches in Paragraph 0104 that suture anchors connected through a frangible connection can be formed from a single piece of material, such as stainless steel, then the suture anchors form a rigid one-piece structure.) comprising: a first suture anchor (201a), a second suture anchor (201a) frangibly connected to the first suture anchor (Paragraphs 0104- 0105) via a tab (frangible connector 202), wherein a notch extends approximately orthogonally between two adjacent suture anchors and a nadir of the notch is proximate to the tab (see annotated Fig. 8A below).
PNG
media_image4.png
136
618
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
203
618
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding separation of a first suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors from a second suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors is achieved by breaking the tab, in Paragraphs 0104 and 0105, Vargas teaches that the frangible connectors 202 has a force enacted upon it where it experiences strain until the point of fracture. Therefore the separation of the adjacent suture anchors occurs when the tab is broken.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lockable suture anchors of the suture anchor system of the combination to have the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors and the frangible connector as a tab as taught by Vargas in the third embodiment since Vargas teaches that the frangible connectors allow for rotation or break depending on what is desired (Paragraphs 0104- 0105).
The combination of ‘424 and Vargas does not claim each suture anchor of the plurality being connected to an adjacent suture anchor via a tab with no intervening joints or articulating pieces.
Bolduc (Bolduc et al.) teaches an anchor (fastener 28)(Figs. 18A- 18B) and a tether element structure (142) that is connected to the anchor with a frangible connection, wherein the adjacent elements are connected via a tab (area of weakness 144) with no intervening joints or articulating pieces (Paragraph 0134)(see annotated Fig. 18A below).
PNG
media_image6.png
304
475
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tab of the frangible connection as taught by Vargas to be the tab of the frangible connection as taught by Bolduc for the purpose of providing a breaking point between two elements (Vargas, 0104- 0105; Bolduc, Paragraph 0134). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one tab of a frangible connection for another because both frangible tabs are disclosed as equivalent structures for providing a frangible breaking point between two elements (Vargas, 0104- 0105; Bolduc, Paragraph 0134) and substitution of one for the other would have resulted in the predictable result of having a frangible breaking point to disconnect two elements during a procedure (Vargas, 0104- 0105; Bolduc, Paragraph 0134). KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 19, ‘424, Vargas, and Bolduc claim the system of claim 18, as discussed above.
‘424 further claims wherein the hypodermic needle is a hollow hypodermic needle comprising an endoscopic needle or an endoscopic ultrasound needle (claim 2 of ‘424).
Regarding claim 20, ‘424, Vargas, and Bolduc claim the system of claim 19, as discussed above.
‘424 further claims wherein the plurality of suture anchors is configured to be positioned inside the hollow hypodermic needle (claim 3 of ‘424)(As discussed above, the plurality of suture anchors of ‘424 are considered to be frangible.).
Regarding claim 21, ‘424, Vargas, and Bolduc claim the system of claim 18, as discussed above.
‘424 further claims a drive hub that is configured to drive the plurality of suture anchors into a subject’s flesh (claim 4 of ‘424)( As discussed above, the plurality of suture anchors of ‘424 are considered to be frangible.).
Regarding claim 24, ‘424, Vargas, and Bolduc claim the system of claim 18, as discussed above.
‘424 further claims wherein the suture anchor system is configured to insert the plurality of suture anchors into the subject's flesh as needed to suture an opening in the subject's flesh (claim 7 of ‘424)(As discussed above, the plurality of suture anchors of ‘424 are considered to be frangible.).
Regarding claim 25, ‘424, Vargas, and Bolduc claim the system of claim 18, as discussed above.
The combination of ‘424 and Vargas further claims wherein the connector end connects to the pusher via a mechanical coupling (In Paragraph 0117, Vargas teaches that a frangible connector is a mechanical coupling, therefore as the connector end is frangibly connected to the pusher (Paragraph 0118), it is connected via a mechanical coupling)(As discussed above, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lockable suture anchors of the suture anchor system and the connection to the pushrod as taught by Vargas in the first embodiment to have the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors and the connector as taught by Vargas in the second embodiment since Vargas teaches that the frangible connectors allow for rotation or break depending on what is desired (Paragraphs 0104- 0105 and 0117)).
Regarding claim 28 and 32, ‘424, Vargas, and Bolduc claim the system of claims 1 and 18, as discussed above.
The combination further claims wherein the notch is V-shaped (see annotated Fig. 8A of Vargas below).
PNG
media_image8.png
214
618
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 29 and 33, ‘424, Vargas, and Bolduc claim the system of claims 1 and 18, as discussed above.
The combination further claims wherein a portion of a proximal end of the first suture anchor is oriented at a first angle, thereby forming a first side of the notch and a portion of a distal end of the second suture anchor is oriented at a second angle, thereby forming a second side of the notch (Vargas, Paragraph 0103)(see annotated Fig. 8A of Vargas below).
PNG
media_image9.png
328
618
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 4, 9, 17- 18, 28- 29 and 32-33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9- 10 of copending Application No. 18/121,949 (‘949) in view of Vargas (US 2015/0250470) and in view of Bolduc et al. (US 2005/0187613).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, ‘949 claims a suture anchor system comprising: a hypodermic needle (claim 9 of ‘949, which depends from claim 1 of ‘949), a frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors (first and second suture anchors, claim 1 of ‘949), and a handle, wherein the handle is configured to house a portion of the pusher and a portion of the hypodermic needle (claim 9 of ‘949, which depends from claim 1 of ‘949).
‘949 does not claim a drive hub, a pusher, the drive hub including a coupling configured to couple to a second end of the pusher, or wherein each suture anchor of the plurality being connected to an adjacent suture anchor via a tab with no intervening joints or articulating pieces, wherein a notch extends approximately orthogonally between two adjacent suture anchors and a nadir of the notch is proximate to the tab and separation of a first suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors from a second suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors is achieved by breaking the tab or wherein the drive hub is configured to drive the frangibly assembled suture anchors into a subject’s flesh as recited in claim 4.
Vargas teaches a device (Fig. 2I)(Paragraph 0117) comprising: a frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors (270, 280)(Paragraph 0118) and a connector end (frangible connector 288) extending from a proximal end of the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors (see annotated Fig. 2I below), the connector end being configured to connect to a pusher (pushrod 250) configured to advance the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors through a hypodermic needle (delivery needle 210) of a suture anchor system (delivery needle 210, pushrod 250)(Paragraph 0117- 0118).
PNG
media_image7.png
346
838
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding wherein the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors are monolithically manufactured as a unitary structure, this claim limitation is a product by process limitation and therefore is only considered as it affects the final product, in the instant case the claimed method imparts to the product a unitary structure. Since Vargas teaches that the plurality of connected suture anchors are frangibly connected through a frangible connector (288) and form a unitary structure (Paragraph 0117), Vargas teaches this claim limitation.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system as claimed by ‘949 to have a pusher and the drive hub including a coupling configured to couple to a second end of the pusher as taught by Vargas since Vargas teaches that the pusher allows for the device to be operated (Paragraphs 0104- 0105 and 0117).
The combination of ‘949 and the first embodiment of Vargas does not claim the drive hub including a coupling configured to couple to a second end of the pusher, or wherein each suture anchor of the plurality being connected to an adjacent suture anchor via a tab with no intervening joints or articulating pieces, wherein a notch extends approximately orthogonally between two adjacent suture anchors and a nadir of the notch is proximate to the tab and separation of a first suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors from a second suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors is achieved by breaking the tab.
Vargas teaches in a second embodiment a suture anchor system (Fig. 14, Paragraph 0144), comprising: a needle (1110), a plurality of suture anchors (suture anchors 1140)(Paragraph 0144)(Fig. 14), a suture (1130)(Fig. 14) connected to the plurality of suture anchors (Paragraph 0144), a drive hub (pushrod slider 1121, pushrod pawl 1122), the drive hub including a coupling (pushrod pawl 1122) configured to couple to a second end of a pusher (Paragraph 0146)(see annotated Fig. 14 below), the pusher (pushrod 1120)(Fig. 14), and a handle (1116, 1125, 1150)(Fig. 14) configured to allow manual operation of the suture anchor system (Paragraph 0146).
PNG
media_image2.png
573
1122
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the drive hub of the combination to include a coupling configured to couple to a second end of a pusher as taught by the second embodiment of Vargas, since Vargas teaches that this connection allows for the device to be operated (Paragraphs 0144 and 0146).
The combination of ‘424 and the first embodiment of Vargas does not claim wherein each suture anchor of the plurality being connected to an adjacent suture anchor via a tab with no intervening joints or articulating pieces, wherein a notch extends approximately orthogonally between two adjacent suture anchors and a nadir of the notch is proximate to the tab and separation of a first suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors from a second suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors is achieved by breaking the tab.
Vargas teaches a suture anchor system (abstract)(Figs. 8A-8D)(Paragraphs 0104- 0105) comprising: a rigid one- piece structure (suture anchors 201a and 201b, connectors 202)(As Vargas teaches in Paragraph 0104 that suture anchors connected through a frangible connection can be formed from a single piece of material, such as stainless steel, then the suture anchors form a rigid one-piece structure.) comprising: a first suture anchor (201a), a second suture anchor (201a) frangibly connected to the first suture anchor (Paragraphs 0104- 0105) via a tab (frangible connector 202), wherein a notch extends approximately orthogonally between two adjacent suture anchors and a nadir of the notch is proximate to the tab (see annotated Fig. 8A below).
PNG
media_image4.png
136
618
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
203
618
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding separation of a first suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors from a second suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors is achieved by breaking the tab, in Paragraphs 0104 and 0105, Vargas teaches that the frangible connectors 202 has a force enacted upon it where it experiences strain until the point of fracture. Therefore the separation of the adjacent suture anchors occurs when the tab is broken.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lockable suture anchors of the suture anchor system of the combination to have the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors and the frangible connector as a tab as taught by Vargas in the second embodiment since Vargas teaches that the frangible connectors allow for rotation or break depending on what is desired (Paragraphs 0104- 0105).
The combination of ‘949 and Vargas does not claim each suture anchor of the plurality being connected to an adjacent suture anchor via a tab with no intervening joints or articulating pieces.
Bolduc (Bolduc et al.) teaches an anchor (fastener 28)(Figs. 18A- 18B) and a tether element structure (142) that is connected to the anchor with a frangible connection, wherein the adjacent elements are connected via a tab (area of weakness 144) with no intervening joints or articulating pieces (Paragraph 0134)(see annotated Fig. 18A below).
PNG
media_image6.png
304
475
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tab of the frangible connection as taught by Vargas to be the tab of the frangible connection as taught by Bolduc for the purpose of providing a breaking point between two elements (Vargas, 0104- 0105; Bolduc, Paragraph 0134). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one tab of a frangible connection for another because both frangible tabs are disclosed as equivalent structures for providing a frangible breaking point between two elements (Vargas, 0104- 0105; Bolduc, Paragraph 0134) and substitution of one for the other would have resulted in the predictable result of having a frangible breaking point to disconnect two elements during a procedure (Vargas, 0104- 0105; Bolduc, Paragraph 0134). KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, ‘949, Vargas, and Bolduc claim the system of claim 8, as discussed above.
‘949 further claims wherein a ball plunger protrudes from the handle allowing manual operation of the suture anchor system (claim 10 of ‘949).
Regarding claim 17, ‘949, Vargas, and Bolduc claim the system of claim 1, as discussed above.
The combination of ‘949 and Vargas further claims wherein the connector end connects to the pusher via a mechanical coupling (In Paragraph 0117, Vargas teaches that a frangible connector is a mechanical coupling, therefore as the connector end is frangibly connected to the pusher (Paragraph 0118), it is connected via a mechanical coupling)(As discussed above, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lockable suture anchors of the suture anchor system and the connection to the pushrod as taught by Vargas in the first embodiment to have the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors and the connector as taught by Vargas in the second embodiment since Vargas teaches that the frangible connectors allow for rotation or break depending on what is desired (Paragraphs 0104- 0105 and 0117)).
Regarding claim 18, ‘949 claims a device (claim 18 of ‘949) comprising: a frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors (claim 18 of ‘949) and a pusher connected to the plurality of suture anchors (claim 18 of ‘949).
‘949 does not claim a connector end extending from a proximal end of the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors, the connector end being configured to connect to a pusher configured to advance the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors through the hypodermic needle.
Vargas teaches a device (Fig. 2I)(Paragraph 0117) comprising: a frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors (270, 280)(Paragraph 0118) and a connector end (frangible connector 288) extending from a proximal end of the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors (see annotated Fig. 2I below), the connector end being configured to connect to a pusher (pushrod 250) configured to advance the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors through a hypodermic needle (delivery needle 210) of a suture anchor system (delivery needle 210, pushrod 250)(Paragraph 0117- 0118).
PNG
media_image7.png
346
838
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding wherein the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors are monolithically manufactured as a unitary structure, this claim limitation is a product by process limitation and therefore is only considered as it affects the final product, in the instant case the claimed method imparts to the product a unitary structure. Since Vargas teaches that the plurality of connected suture anchors are frangibly connected through a frangible connector (288) and form a unitary structure (Paragraph 0117), Vargas teaches this claim limitation.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system as claimed by ‘949 to have a pusher, a frangibly monolithically manufacture plurality of suture anchors and the drive hub including a coupling configured to couple to a second end of the pusher as taught by Vargas since Vargas teaches that the frangible connectors allow for rotation or break depending on what is desired and the pusher allows for the device to be operated (Paragraphs 0104- 0105 and 0117).
The combination of ‘949 and the first embodiment of Vargas do not claim The combination of ‘424 and the first embodiment of Vargas do not claim wherein each suture anchor of the plurality being connected to an adjacent suture anchor via a tab with no intervening joints or articulating pieces, wherein a notch extends approximately orthogonally between two adjacent suture anchors and a nadir of the notch is proximate to the tab and separation of a first suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors from a second suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors is achieved by breaking the tab.
Vargas teaches a suture anchor system (abstract)(Figs. 8A-8D)(Paragraphs 0104- 0105) comprising: a rigid one- piece structure (suture anchors 201a and 201b, connectors 202)(As Vargas teaches in Paragraph 0104 that suture anchors connected through a frangible connection can be formed from a single piece of material, such as stainless steel, then the suture anchors form a rigid one-piece structure.) comprising: a first suture anchor (201a), a second suture anchor (201a) frangibly connected to the first suture anchor (Paragraphs 0104- 0105) via a tab (frangible connector 202), wherein a notch extends approximately orthogonally between two adjacent suture anchors and a nadir of the notch is proximate to the tab (see annotated Fig. 8A below).
PNG
media_image4.png
136
618
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
203
618
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding separation of a first suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors from a second suture anchor of the two adjacent suture anchors is achieved by breaking the tab, in Paragraphs 0104 and 0105, Vargas teaches that the frangible connectors 202 has a force enacted upon it where it experiences strain until the point of fracture. Therefore the separation of the adjacent suture anchors occurs when the tab is broken.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lockable suture anchors of the suture anchor system of the combination to have the frangibly assembled plurality of suture anchors and the frangible connector as a tab as taught by Vargas in the third embodiment since Vargas teaches that the frangible connectors allow for rotation or break depending on what is desired (Paragraphs 0104- 0105).
The combination of ‘949 and Vargas does not claim each suture anchor of the plurality being connected to an adjacent suture anchor via a tab with no intervening joints or articulating pieces.
Bolduc (Bolduc et al.) teaches an anchor (fastener 28)(Figs. 18A- 18B) and a tether element structure (142) that is connected to the anchor with a frangible connection, wherein the adjacent elements are connected via a tab (area of weakness 144) with no intervening joints or articulating pieces (Paragraph 0134)(see annotated Fig. 18A below).
PNG
media_image6.png
304
475
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tab of the frangible connection as taught by Vargas to be the tab of the frangible connection as taught by Bolduc for the purpose of providing a breaking point between two elements (Vargas, 0104- 0105; Bolduc, Paragraph 0134). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one tab of a frangible connection for another because both frangible tabs are disclosed as equivalent structures for providing a frangible breaking point between two elements (Vargas, 0104- 0105; Bolduc, Paragraph 0134) and substitution of one for the other would have resulted in the predictable result of having a frangible breaking point to disconnect two elements during a procedure (Vargas, 0104- 0105; Bolduc, Paragraph 0134). KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 28 and 32, ‘949, Vargas, and Bolduc claim the system of claims 1 and 18, as discussed above.
The combination further claims wherein the notch is V-shaped (see annotated Fig. 8A of Vargas below).
PNG
media_image8.png
214
618
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 29 and 33, ‘949, Vargas, and Bolduc claim the system of claims 1 and 18, as discussed above.
The combination further claims wherein a portion of a proximal end of the first suture anchor is oriented at a first angle, thereby forming a first side of the notch and a portion of a distal end of the second suture anchor is oriented at a second angle, thereby forming a second side of the notch (Vargas, Paragraph 0103)(see annotated Fig. 8A of Vargas below).
PNG
media_image9.png
328
618
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-8, filed July 14th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 7, 17- 21, 24, 28- 29, 31- 33, and 35 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of these claims has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY R. RIVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at (571) 272- 4696. 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.
/L.R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3771 /TAN-UYEN T HO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights