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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 22 June 2026 has been entered.
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) 2-4, 7-10, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leimbach et al (2879687).
In regards to Claim 2, Leimbach teaches an apparatus for making surgical braids, the apparatus comprising:
a plurality of bobbin carrier assemblies (Detail 27), the bobbin carrier assemblies carrying strands (the “yarn” of the yarn carriers 27);
a plurality of horn gears (Detail 30) defining an active path (see annotated figure below), at least three of the bobbin carrier assemblies disposed along the active path (Figure 1), wherein strands carried by the at least three bobbin carrier assemblies are actively intertwined into a surgical braid when the at least three bobbin carrier assemblies are moving along the active path (a braid is being formed);
at least one horn gear defining a passive path (see annotated figure below), wherein a strand selectively carried by a bobbin carrier assembly on the passive path is not actively intertwined with strands carried on the active path (a bobbin on the passive track of Leimbach would not be integrated at that moment into the braid being formed on the active track); and
a transfer gate arranged to selectively enable movement of at least one of the plurality of bobbin carrier assemblies between the active and passive paths (Details 5, 6, 7, and 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
490
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to Claim 3, Leimbach teaches a plate, the plate further forming the active path and the passive path (Figure 4, Detail 25).
In regards to Claim 4, Leimbach teaches the plate defines a plurality of grooves, at least two of the plurality of grooves further defining the active path and at least one of the plurality of grooves further defining the passive path (Figure 4 shows grooved path).
In regards to Claim 7, Leimbach teaches the active path is an endless path when the gate is in the closed position (Forming Figure 11 would require two endless paths; one the active path, one the passive path).
In regards to Claim 8, Leimbach teaches the active path defines a bounded region and the passive path is positioned outside the bounded region (the annotated figure above shows the passive path is outside the active path).
In regards to Claim 9, Leimbach teaches the at least one horn gear defining the passive path is positioned outside the bounded region (the annotated figure above shows the passive path is outside the active path).
In regards to Claim 10, Leimbach teaches the passive path is defined by two or more horn gears (Figure 1 shows each path with 12 horn gears).
In regards to Claim 12, Leimbach teaches at least one bobbin carrier assembly on the active path bypasses the passive path when at least one bobbin carrier assembly is selectively disposed along the passive path (to form Figure 11, a braid would have to be formed, separately, on each of the active path and the passive path; The claim does not require that the selective disposal causes the bypass, only that they occur at the same time).
In regards to Claim 13, Leimbach teaches the bypass of the passive path by the at least one bobbin carrier assembly on the active path occurs by operation of the transfer gate (Details 5, 6, 7, 8).
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.
Claims 14, 16, and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,024,804.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both teach the same apparatus, with the claims aligned as follows.
Claim 14 of the instant application aligns with Claim 1 of the ‘804 patent.
Claim 16 of the instant application would align with Claim 1 of the ‘804 patent as non-oscillating path would indicate no braiding is occurring, as n oscillating path must be present for a braid to form.
Claim 17 of the instant application would align with Claim 1 of the ‘804 patent as braiding requires out-of-phase oscillating paths to form a braided structure, as the strands must pass over and under each other.
Claims 14, 16, and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,447,901.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both teach the same apparatus, with the claims aligned as follows.
Claim 14 of the instant application aligns with Claim 1 of the ‘901 patent.
Claim 16 of the instant application aligns with Claim 7 of the ‘901 patent.
Claim 17 of the instant application aligns with Claim 6 of the ‘901 patent.
Claims 15, 18, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,024,804 in view of Leimbach et al.
While the ‘804 patent essentially teaches the inventio as detailed, it fails to specifically teach moving a bobbin from the passive path to the active path by operating a transfer gate, and moving a bobbin to the passive path requires moving a transfer gate from a closed position to an open position, all of which Leimbach teaches (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to move bobbins between paths using a transfer gate, so as to allow for braiding variations in an automated manner.
Claims 15, 18, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,447,901 in view of Leimbach et al.
While the ‘901 patent essentially teaches the inventio as detailed, it fails to specifically teach moving a bobbin from the passive path to the active path by operating a transfer gate, and moving a bobbin to the passive path requires moving a transfer gate from a closed position to an open position, all of which Leimbach teaches (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to move bobbins between paths using a transfer gate, so as to allow for braiding variations in an automated manner.
Claims 2-4, 7, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,447,900 in view of in view of Leimbach et al.
Claim 2 of the instant application aligns with Claim 1 of the ‘900 patent, with the exception of a plurality of horn gears. Leimbach, however, teaches that it is well known that braiding machines have horn gears (Figure 7) to interact with bobbins and drive braiding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize horn gears to move the bobbins as needed.
Claim 3 of the instant application aligns with Claim 2 of the ‘900 patent.
Claim 4 of the instant application aligns with Claim 3 of the ‘900 patent.
Claim 7 of the instant application aligns with Claim 11 of the ‘900 patent.
Claim 10 of the instant application would align with Claim 1 of the ‘900 patent as the passive path would require at least 2 horn gears to form a path, or there would be no path.
Claim 12 of the instant application would align with Claim 1 of the ‘900 patent as the ‘900 patent teaches bobbins on both paths. The claim does not require that the selective disposal causes the bypass, only that they occur at the same time.
Claim 13 of the instant application would align with Claim 1 of the ‘900 patent as Claim 1 teaches a transfer gate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Leimbach’s braiding head 21 is an active braiding path, not a passive path. Respectfully, Examiner disagrees. Detail 21 is passive to Detail 20. No strands subject to Detail 21 are being actively intertwined with strands carried on Detail 20. This is what the claim language requires. Nowhere does Claim 2 state that the strands on the passive path cannot be formed into a separate braid. Again, Claim 2 states: “wherein a strand selectively carried by a bobbin carrier assembly on the passive path is not actively intertwined with strands carried on the active path”. Leimbach teaches, when the strands are located with Detail 21, no active braiding with the strands of Detail 20 occurs. As such, Examiner believes that Leimbach does in fact teach all the elements recited in the claims.
In regards to the double patenting rejections, since Applicant has not addressed the rejections, they are currently maintained.
In regards to Claim 14, no art rejection has been made as Claim 14 is a method, and specifically requires the step of “selectively moving a bobbin to a passive path while continuing to move the remaining bobbins along the active path”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shaun R Hurley whose telephone number is (571)272-4986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00am - 3:00pm.
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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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 R HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights