DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed 27 May 2026. Claim(s) 1-6, 10-11, 15, 20-21, 25, 27-29, 32-33, 37, 42, 46-47, 53, 55, 57, and101-103 are currently pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claim(s) 1, 5, 10-11, 20, 25, 27, 32, 33, 42, 46, 47, 53, and 55, cancelled claim(s) 7-9, 12-14, 16-19, 22-24, 26, 30-31, 34-36, 38-41, 43-45, 48-52, 54, 56, and 58-100 and new claim(s) 101-103.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
No claim limitation has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because each term (e.g., ‘hook structure’) connotes sufficient structure to a POSITA. See MPEP § 2181. If applicant contends otherwise, please point to supporting disclosure.”
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10, 11, 15, 20, 21, 25, 27, 28, 32, 33, 37, 42, 45, 47, 53, 55, and 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Felix et al. (US 2019/0117363A1, “Felix”).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 10, 32, 46 and 57, Felix discloses an implantable prosthesis including a layer of biologically compatible repair fabric (36; [0070, 0079, 0106]). A plurality of separate microtextured grip segments (26; [0064]) are secured to the layer of repair fabric. Each of the plurality of separate grip segments includes a plurality of grips (24; [0064]) having at least one hook structure (52a,b). It is noted that grip segments including a substrate with a plurality of grips with hook features extending from the substrate form a microtextured surface [0053]. Felix discloses that the repair fabric (36) is a mesh, wherein a mesh is known to have openings/perforations a well as pores (38; Fig. 6). The plurality of separate grip segments are attached to a surface of the layer of repair fabric [0058, 0082].
Regarding claim 3, Felix discloses that each of the plurality of grips include two hook features (52a,b) that extend in opposing directions (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, Felix discloses that each of the plurality of grips includes a first pillar (54; Fig. 7), a second pillar (32) extending from a surface of the first pillar. A cross-sectional area of the first pillar is larger than a cross-sectional area of the second pillar. The at least one hook structure extends from the second pillar (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 11, Felix discloses that the plurality of separate grip segments includes three or more grip segments integrated with the layer of repair fabric (Fig. 3; [0065]).
Regarding claim 15, Felix discloses that the layer of repair fabric has a preformed three-dimensional configuration with an apex which is free of grip segments (Fig. 1,3;[0100]).
Regarding claim 20, Felix discloses that the plurality of perforations (38) for at least one grip segment of the plurality of separate grip segments are arranged in at least three distinct regions on the at least one grip segment (Fig. 3) as shown via columns of each grip segment.
Regarding claim 21, Felix discloses that each region (column) includes a group of perforations (Fig. 3; [0066, 0102]).
Regarding claim 25, Felix discloses that the plurality of perforations for at least on grip segment of the plurality of separate grip segments are arranged in an array which extends in a direction along a length of the at least one grip segment (Fig. 3, 22; [0065-0066,0102]).
Regarding claim 27, Felix discloses that the layer of repair fabric has preformed three-dimensional configuration with an apex (Fig. 1,3;[0100]) and a rounded ridge extending from the apex to an outer periphery. A portion of at least one grip segment of the plurality of separate grip segments extend across the rounded ridge (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 28, Felix discloses that at least two grip segments are arranged on the layer of repair fabric entirely on one side of the rounded ridge (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 33, Felix discloses that the plurality of separate grip segments includes three or more microtextured grip segments integrated with the layer of repair fabric (Fig. 3; [0065]).
Regarding claim 37, Felix discloses that the layer of repair fabric has a preformed three-dimensional configuration with an apex which is free of microtextured grip segments (Fig. 1,3;[0100]).
Regarding claim 42, Felix discloses that the plurality of perforations (38) for at least one microtextured grip segment of the plurality of separate grip segments are arranged in at least three distinct regions on the at least one grip segment (Fig. 3) as shown via columns of each grip segment.
Regarding claim 47, Felix discloses that the plurality of separate grip segments occupy approximately 20% to approximately 30% of a surface of the layer of repair fabric (Fig. 1, 22).
Regarding claim 53, Felix discloses that the plurality of perforations (38) for at least one grip segment of the plurality of separate grip segments are arranged in at least three distinct regions on the at least one grip segment (Fig. 3) as shown via columns of each grip segment.
Regarding claim 55, Felix discloses that the plurality of perforations for at least on grip segment of the plurality of separate grip segments are arranged in an array which extends in a direction along a length of the at least one grip segment (Fig. 3, 22; [0065-0066,0102]).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felix et al. (US 2019/0117363A1, “Felix”).
Regarding claim 4, Felix discloses that the hook features extending a distance of approximately 0.20mm to approximately 0.30mm are disclosed as result effective variables in that changing the length of the hook features provides sufficient amount of tissue grip while reducing inadvertent release from tissue. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Felix to have hook features extending a distance in the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. 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 the device of Felix by extending the hook features a distance of approximately 0.20mm to approximately 0.30mm, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 29 and 101-103 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Priewe et al. (US 2014/0257348A1) discloses a surgical implant that discloses separate grip segments and a repair fabric including perforations extending therethrough.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOCELIN C TANNER whose telephone number is (571)270-5202. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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.
/JOCELIN C TANNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights