DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed September 19, 2024. Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 defines a first side of the graft suspension device in lines 4-5. Claim 1 additionally defines first and second sides of the ridge in lines 6-8. Thus, the Examiner suggests amending line 9 to recite: “…when seeing from a direction of the first side of the graft suspension device;…” and amending lines 10-11 to recite “…extending from the first side to a second side of the graft suspension device” to clarify which side the limitation is referring to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 contains a typographical error in line 2. The following correction is suggested: “…at least one of the first side routing surface [[(8)]] and [[side]] second side routing…”
Claims 2-15 are objected to due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the second through hole" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-12 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 10.
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) 1-4, 6-7, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spenciner et al. (US 2013/0204366, hereinafter “Spenciner”).
Regarding claim 1, Spenciner discloses a graft suspension-device (60) device, comprising: an elongate body having a first end (70), a second end (74), and a longitudinal axis (X) extending therebetween (para [0042]; Figs 5-6);
a ridge (80) arranged on the longitudinal axis, on a first side (top side) of the graft suspension device (side shown in Fig 6);
a first side routing surface (sidewall 82 of slot 32) arranged next to a first side of the ridge;
a second side routing surface (sidewall 82 of slot 32) arranged next to a second side of the ridge, so that the ridge lies between the first and second routing surfaces when seeing from direction of the first side (Figs 5-6); and
wherein the first and second routing surfaces are extending from the first side to a second side of the device (extend through the thickness of the device from the top side or surface to the bottom side or surface of the device).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (plateau)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Sloping surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arc][AltContent: textbox (End wall)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st through hole)][AltContent: textbox (2nd through hole)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd end)][AltContent: textbox (1st end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd side routing surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st side routing surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Ridge)]
PNG
media_image1.png
694
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, wherein: at least one of the first side routing surface and the second side routing surface is arranged in a groove (long channel formed by slot 32 OR groove forming flange 68) that is arranged to constitute a part of a respective sidewall of the device (sidewall 82; see annotated Fig 6 above).
Regarding claim 3, wherein: at least one of the first side routing surface and the second side routing surface is arranged in hole (hole formed by slot 32; see annotated Fig 6 above).
Regarding claim 4, comprising: at least one projection (flange 68 extending to sidewall 82) extending sideways away from the ridge (80); and wherein at least one of the first side routing surface and the second side routing surface is arranged on the surface of the at least one projection (Fig 6).
Regarding claim 6, comprising: a first through hole (72) extending through the device and arranged closer to the second end (74) than to the first end (70).
Regarding claim 7, comprising; a second through hole (76) extending through the device and arranged closer to the first end (70) than to the second end (74).
Regarding claim 13, comprising: a middle bulge (tang 102) arranged in an area between the first and the second side routing surfaces on the second side of the device (Fig 7, para [0045]).
Regarding claim 14, wherein the device is made of at least one of the materials selected from polymer materials and metals (para [0035]).
Regarding claim 15, Spenciner discloses a graft suspension arrangement, comprising: the graft suspension device as claimed claim 1 (12/60); a loop (14/83); a pulling suture (30); and optionally a flipping suture (28) (Figs 1-2, 4A-D, and 5-6; para [0033, 0037-0038, 0048]).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spenciner (US 2013/0204366), as applied to claims 1 above, further in view of Walker et al. (US 2014/0094912, hereinafter “Walker”). Spenciner discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as shown above, including side routing surfaces (Fig 6). However, Spenciner fails to disclose the side routing surfaces are arranged asymmetrically. Walker disclose a similar graft suspension device (Figs 1-2A) comprising first and second (122) side routing surfaces formed by a transverse passage (120) and teaches the transverse passage can be symmetric (as shown in Figs 1-2A) or asymmetric (para [0116]), thus also having side routing surfaces arranged symmetrically or asymmetrically. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spenciner such that the side routing surfaces were arranged asymmetrically so that one of the side routing surfaces is located closer to the first end than another side routing surface, since Walker teaches both configurations are known in the art and since substitution of one known element (symmetric side routing surfaces) for another element (asymmetric side routing surfaces) providing the same function (surface for routing a loop) to yield predictable results would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spenciner (US 2013/0204366), as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, further in view of Pasquali et al. (US 2015/0039026, hereinafter “Pasquali”).
Regarding claims 8-9, Spenciner discloses the invention substantially as claimed including a holding surface (top portion or circumference of through hole 76) arranged in the second through hole (76), which is arranged closer to the first end (70) than to the second end (74). However, Spenciner fails to disclose the holding surface comprises a concave shape. Pasquali discloses a similar graft suspension device comprising at least one through hole (220) comprising a concave shape on a top portion thereof (Fig 2). Pasquali teaches the through hole “can be chamfered or rounded so as to ease threading of a suture length therethrough and reduce the possibility of damage to a suture length from contact with a sharp-edged corner” (para [0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spenciner such that the holding surface or top portion or circumference of through hole 76 comprised a concave shape to ease threading of a suture length therethrough and reduce the possibility of damage to a suture length from contact with a sharp-edged corner, as taught by Pasquali.
Regarding claim 10, Spenciner teaches a plateau (portion of 62/64 as shown in annotated Fig 6 above) arranged between the ridge (80) and the first end (70) on the first side of the graft suspension device, the plateau joining to the side routing surfaces, and wherein the second through hole is arranged in the plateau (see annotated Fig 6 above).
Regarding claim 11, Spenciner teaches an end wall arranged at the first end, the end wall bordering the plateau (see annotated Fig 6 above).
Regarding claim 12, Spenciner teaches the ridge (80) has a sloping surface from the plateau on the ridge (see annotated Fig 6 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE MARIE RODJOM whose telephone number is (571)272-3201. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 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.
/KATHERINE M RODJOM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights