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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/11/2026 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) 1, 3, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2012/0065731 to Justin et al. (Justin).
Justin teaches:
Claim 1: Claim 1: A toggle-type suture anchor comprising: an elongated body having a top surface and a bottom surface, and a proximal end and a distal end defining a longitudinal direction therebetween with at least a first bore and a second bore extending laterally through the elongated body at a spaced interval, each bore extending from the top surface to the bottom surface; a suture extending through the first bore from the top surface to the bottom surface, along the bottom surface of the elongated body between the first bore and the second bore, and then through the second bore from the bottom surface to the top surface, wherein the suture extends along the bottom surface only between the first bore and the second bore (the examiner interpretation of this limitation is that the suture extending at the bottom surface of the elongated body between the first bore and second bore only and not extending through any other bores in between the first and second bores); and a pair of fins projecting from a proximal portion of the elongated body, each fin having a distal end on the elongated body; wherein each of the first bore and the second bore are distal of the distal end of each fin. (Fig. 1 reproduced with annotation below)
Claim 3: The bottom surface of the elongated body includes a channel, such that when the suture is in tension, the suture at least partly resides in the channel. (Fig. 1 reproduced with annotation below)
Claim 7: The elongated body further includes a third bore between the first bore and the second bore, the third bore having a different cross-sectional dimension than a cross-sectional dimension of the first bore. (Fig. 1 reproduced with annotation below)
PNG
media_image1.png
585
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 8, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2006/0293710 to Foerster et al. (Foerster).
Foerster teaches:
Claim 8: A toggle-type suture anchor comprising:
an elongated body having a proximalmost end and a distalmost end defining a longitudinal direction therebetween with at least a first bore and a second bore extending laterally through the elongated body at a spaced interval, the elongated body defining a longitudinal axis from the proximalmost end to the distalmost end (Fig. 1A reproduced with annotation below); and
a pair of fins each having a distalmost end projecting proximally from the proximalmost end of the elongated body, each fin having a proximal free end angled away from the longitudinal axis. (Fig. 1A reproduced with annotation below)
PNG
media_image2.png
291
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 11: The pair of fins includes a right fin and a left fin, the right fin extending to the right relative to the longitudinal axis, the left fin extending to the left relative to the longitudinal axis. (Fig. 3B reproduced with annotation below)
Claim 12: The elongated body has a maximum outer dimension, the left fin extends to the left beyond the maximum outer dimension, and the right fin extends to the right beyond the maximum outer dimension. (Fig. 3B reproduced with annotation below)
PNG
media_image3.png
457
362
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding base claim 14, none of the prior art disclose, in combination with other limitations of the claim, a toggle-type suture anchor comprising an elongated body, upper surface, lower surface, a right side, a left side, a distal end defining a forward surface angled from the lower surface up to the upper surface and a right fin angled outward beyond the right side of the body and a left fin angled outward beyond the left side of the body. The closest prior art US 2004/0243178 to Haut et al. discloses push-in suture anchor comprising an anchor body with first and second bores and fins/locking wings 115 extending from the body 105 of the anchor and two sutures extending through each of the bore respectively but fails to disclose, a suture extending into the first bore, along the anchor body and through the second bore and the bores are distal of the fins in claim 1. The prior art also fails to disclose a forward surface angled from the lower surface up to the upper surface in claim 14. US 2018/0228597 to McCarty, III discloses tendon anchoring having an elongated body with "fins" 124 at the distal end and apertures 115 on the body but fails to disclose a distal end defining a forward surface angled from the lower surface up to the upper surface and a right fin angled outward beyond the right side of the body and a left fin angled outward beyond the left side of the body. US 2012/0065731 to Justin et al. discloses systems and methods for intra operative tension and fixation of zipknot ACL fixation comprises an elongate body with plurality of bores and "fins" (head 22) but also fails to disclose a distal end defining a forward surface angled from the lower surface up to the upper surface and a right fin angled outward beyond the right side of the body and a left fin angled outward beyond the left side of the body.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 4-6, 9-10, 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 4, none of the prior art discloses, the distal end of the elongated body includes a lower surface that is angled toward the top surface of the elongated body. Regarding claim 5, none of the prior art discloses, the pair of fins each include an upper surface that is angled away from the top surface of the elongated body. Regarding claim 6, none of the prior art discloses, the pair of ins each include a lower surface that is angled down from the bottom surface of the body. Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art fails to disclose the pair of fins extend downward relative to the top surface and the longitudinal axis. Claim 10 objected for depending on claim 9. Regarding claim 13, the cited prior art fails to disclose a dimple for receiving a pushing tool, the dimple located between the pair of fins.
The prior arts Justin or Foerster disclosing fins but they are not extending downward relative to the top surface and the longitudinal axis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argued that the prior art Justin fails to teach the suture extending along the bottom surface of the elongated body only between the first and second bores. The examiner understands that the applicant is trying to claim the suture extending at the bottom surface only once and the prior art having the suture extending at the bottom surface more than once between the bores. However, the claimed language can be interpreted differently such as the suture extending at the bottom surface only between the first and the second bore and not going through the bore in between the first and the second bores. The instant application drawing shows the anchor body having a body consisting of first bore on one side, second bore on the other side and another bore between the first and second bore. A suture extending at the bottom surface between the first and the second bore and not extending through the bore in between. The prior art Justin annotated drawing figure 1 in the Final Rejection also shows an anchor body having a first bore on one side and a second bore on the other side of the anchor and a bore in between the first and second bore. The annotated drawing also shows a suture extending through the first bore, along the bottom surface of the body and into the second bore without extending through the bore in between the first and second bore. Therefore, one interpretation of the claim language is that the suture extend through the first bore, along the bottom surface, then through the second bore only and not through the bore in between the first and second bore which is read on the claimed language in claim 1. One suggestion would be for the suture extending at the bottom surface only one time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG SON DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at 571-272-7134. 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.
/PHONG SON H DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights