DETAILED ACTION
The following Office Action is in response to the Non-Provisional Patent Application filed on December 3, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Reference numbers 86 for the upper pusher and 76 for the lower pusher are not shown in the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5-6, 8-15, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hart et al. (US 2013/0144315, hereinafter Hart).
Concerning claim 1, the Hart et al. prior art reference teaches a suture manipulating device (Figure 1-11; 10) comprising: a first jaw (Figure 2; 16a) having a first jaw track (Figure 1C; 18); a second jaw (Figure 2; 16b) having a second jaw track (Figure 1C; 20); a shuttle (Figure 2; 22); a first pusher (Figure 2; 38a), wherein the shuttle is movable from the first jaw track to the second jaw track via the first pusher (Figures 2-6); and a second pusher (Figure 2; 38b), wherein the shuttle is movable from the second jaw track to the first jaw track via the second pusher ([¶ 0057]), wherein the first pusher and the second pusher are movable independently of one another ([¶ 0060]), wherein the suturing manipulating device has an open configuration (Figure 1A; 29b) and a closed configuration (Figure 1A; 29a), and wherein the second jaw is closer to the first jaw when the suture manipulating device is in the closed configuration than when the suture manipulating device is in the open configuration ([¶ 0049]).
Concerning claim 2, the Hart reference teaches the suture manipulating device of claim 1, further comprising a control configured to toggle between the first pusher and the second pusher (Figure 1A; 24).
Concerning claim 3, the Hart reference teaches the suture manipulating device of claim 1, wherein the first pusher and the second pusher are selectable such that the first pusher is movable independently of the second pusher when the first pusher is selected and such that the second pusher is movable independently of the first pusher when the second pusher is selected ([¶ 0064]).
Concerning claim 5, the Hart reference teaches the suture manipulating device of claim 1, wherein the shuttle has shuttle notches (Figure 10A; tapers on either side of the needle may be defined as notches), wherein the shuttle has a shuttle first lateral side (Figure 10A; 22a) and a shuttle second lateral side opposite the shuttle first lateral side (Figure 10A; 22b), wherein one of the shuttle notches is on the shuttle first lateral side, and wherein another one of the shuttle notches is on the shuttle second lateral side.
Concerning claim 6, the Hart reference teaches the suture manipulating device of claim 1, wherein the shuttle has shuttle notches (Figure 10A; tapers on either side of the needle may be defined as notches), wherein the shuttle has a shuttle first longitudinal end (Figure 10A; 22a) and a shuttle second longitudinal end opposite the shuttle first longitudinal end, wherein one of the shuttle notches is on the shuttle first longitudinal end, and wherein another one of the shuttle notches is on the shuttle second longitudinal end.
Concerning claim 8, the Hart et al. prior art reference teaches a suture manipulating device (Figure 1-11; 10) comprising: a first jaw (Figure 2; 16a) having a first jaw track (Figure 1C; 18); a second jaw (Figure 2; 16b) having a second jaw track (Figure 1C; 20); a shuttle (Figure 2; 22); a first pusher (Figure 2; 38a), wherein the shuttle is movable from the first jaw track to the second jaw track via the first pusher (Figures 2-6); and a second pusher (Figure 2; 38b), wherein the shuttle is movable from the second jaw track to the first jaw track via the second pusher ([¶ 0057]), a first control (Figure 1; 24), wherein the first pusher is selectable via the first control, and wherein the second pusher is selectable first the first control ([¶ 0064]), wherein the suturing manipulating device has an open configuration (Figure 1A; 29b) and a closed configuration (Figure 1A; 29a), and wherein the second jaw is closer to the first jaw when the suture manipulating device is in the closed configuration than when the suture manipulating device is in the open configuration ([¶ 0049]).
Concerning claim 9, the Hart reference teaches the suture manipulating device of claim 8, wherein the first control is positionable in a first control first position and in a first control second position, and wherein when the first control is in the first control first position, the first pusher is selected, and wherein when the first control is in the first control second position, the second pusher is selected ([¶ 0064]).
Concerning claim 10, the Hart reference teaches the suture manipulating device of claim 8, wherein the first control is positionable in a first control first position and in a first control second position, and wherein when the first control is in the first control first position, the first control is movable, and wherein when the first control is in the first control second position, the second pusher is movable ([¶ 0064]).
Concerning claim 11, the Hart reference teaches the suture manipulating device of claim 8, further comprising a second control (Figure 1; 14), wherein the first pusher is movable relative to the second pusher via the second control, and wherein the second pusher is movable relative to the first pusher via the second control ([¶ 0064]).
Concerning claim 12, the Hart reference teaches the suture manipulating device of claim 8, further comprising a second control (Figure 1; 14), wherein when the first control is in the first position, the first pusher is movable relative to the second pusher via the second control, and wherein when the first control is in a second position, the second pusher is movable relative to the first pusher via the second control ([¶ 0064]).
Concerning claim 13, the Hart reference teaches the suture manipulating device of claim 8, further comprising a second control (Figure 1A; 14) and a third control (Figure 9A; 28), wherein the first pusher and the second pusher are individually movable via the second control ([¶ 0064]), and wherein the second jaw is movable relative to the first jaw via the third control ([¶ 0049]).
Concerning claim 14, the Hart reference teaches the suture manipulating device of claim 13, wherein the first control (Figure 1A; 24) is between the second control (Figure 1A; 14) and the third control (Figure 9A; 28).
Concerning claim 15, the Hart reference teaches the suture manipulating device of claim 13, wherein the second control is movable toward and away from the first control (Figure 1; 14).
Concerning claim 19, the Hart et al. prior art reference teaches a suture manipulating device (Figure 1-11; 10) comprising: a first jaw (Figure 2; 16a) having a first jaw track (Figure 2; lumen within jaw 16a); a second jaw (Figure 2; 16b) having a second jaw track (Figure 2; lumen within jaw 16b); a shuttle (Figure 2; 22); a first pusher (Figure 2; 18), wherein the shuttle is movable from the first jaw track to the second jaw track via the first pusher (Figures 2-6), wherein the first pusher is movable out of the first jaw track (Figure 5; 18); and a second pusher (Figure 2; 20), wherein the shuttle is movable from the second jaw track to the first jaw track via the second pusher ([¶ 0057]), and wherein the second pusher is movable out of the second jaw track ([¶ 0051]), wherein the suturing manipulating device has an open configuration (Figure 1A; 29b) and a closed configuration (Figure 1A; 29a), and wherein the second jaw is closer to the first jaw when the suture manipulating device is in the closed configuration than when the suture manipulating device is in the open configuration ([¶ 0049]).
Concerning claim 20, the Hart reference teaches the manipulating device of claim 19, wherein the first pusher is advanceable into and retractable from the second jaw track ([¶ 0069], pusher 18 will enter sleeve 40 portion of second jaw track) when the first pusher is selected via a control (Figure 1A; 24), and wherein the second pusher is advanceable into and retractable from the first jaw track when the second pusher is selected via the control ([¶ 0069], pusher 20 will enter sleeve 40 portion of first jaw track).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al. (US 2013/0144315, hereinafter Hart) in view of Watschke et al. (US 2010/0023027, hereinafter Watschke).
Concerning claims 4 and 18, the Hart reference teaches the suture manipulating device of claims 1 and 8, but does not teach a pusher lockout, wherein movement of the shuttle is preventable via the pusher lockout when the suture device is in the open configuration.
However, the Watschke reference teaches a suture manipulating device similar to that of the Hart reference, wherein the Watschke reference teaches a suture manipulating device (Figure 1; 100) comprising: a first jaw (Figure 1; 54) having a first jaw track (Figure 7A; 149); a second jaw (Figure 1; 52) having a second jaw track (Figure 7A; 146); a shuttle (Figure 7A; 142); a first pusher (Figure 7A; 144), wherein the shuttle is movable from the first jaw track to the second jaw track via the first pusher, wherein suturing manipulating device has an open configuration (Figure 7B) and a closed configuration (Figure 7C), and wherein the second jaw is closer to the first jaw when the suture manipulating device is in the closed configuration than when the suture manipulating device is in the open configuration (Figure 7C), and further comprising a pusher lockout, wherein movement of the shuttle is preventable via the pusher lockout when the suture manipulating device is in the open configuration ([¶ 0144]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the suture manipulating device of the Hart reference include the pusher lockout of the Watschke reference to prevent the shuttle from being passed between the jaws unless the jaws are in the clamped position (Watschke; [¶ 0144]).
Claim(s) 7 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al. (US 2013/0144315, hereinafter Hart) in view of Saliman et al. (US 2009/0012538, hereinafter Saliman).
Concerning claims 7 and 17, the Hart reference teaches the suture manipulating device of claims 1 and 13, wherein the Hart reference further teaches the shuttle having shuttle notches (Figure 10A; tapers on the shuttle may be interpreted as notches), wherein a suture is attachable to the shuttle between one of the shuttle notches and another of the shuttle notches (Figure 10A; 22c), and wherein the first control extends from a side of the suture manipulating device (Figure 1; 24), but it does not specifically teach but it does not specifically teach the first jaw being fixed relative to the second jaw, and wherein the second jaw is movable toward and away from the first jaw.
However, the Saliman reference teaches a suture manipulating device similar to that of the Hart reference, wherein the Saliman reference teaches a suture manipulating device (Figure 1; 10) comprising: a first jaw having a first jaw track (Figure 32; 3201); a second jaw having a second jaw track (Figure 32; 3203); a shuttle (Figure 29A-E; 2905); a first pusher (Figure 32; 3213), wherein the shuttle is movable from the first jaw track to the second jaw track via the first pusher; and a second pusher (Figure 32; 3213’), wherein the shuttle is movable from the second jaw track to the first jaw track via the second pusher, wherein suturing manipulating device has an open configuration (Figure 29A) and a closed configuration (Figure 29B), and wherein the second jaw is closer to the first jaw when the suture manipulating device is in the closed configuration than when the suture manipulating device is in the open configuration (Figure 29B), wherein the Saliman reference teaches an embodiment where the first jaw is fixed relative to the second jaw, and wherein the second jaw is movable toward and away from the first jaw (Figure 27D-G | [¶ 0163]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have the jaws of the Hart reference open and close in such a way that the first jaw is fixed relative to the second jaw, and wherein the second jaw is movable toward and away from the first jaw as in the Saliman reference given the Saliman reference teaches that such a way to open and close the jaws is an obvious alternative to both jaws moving toward and away from one another (Saliman; [¶ 0157-0164]).
Concerning claim 16, the Hart reference teaches the suture manipulating device of claim 13, but does not specifically teach a lock, wherein the third control is lockable in a closed position via the lock.
However, the Saliman reference teaches a suture manipulating device similar to that of the Hart reference, wherein the Saliman reference teaches a suture manipulating device (Figure 1; 10) comprising: a first jaw having a first jaw track (Figure 32; 3201); a second jaw having a second jaw track (Figure 32; 3203); a shuttle (Figure 29A-E; 2905); a first pusher (Figure 32; 3213), wherein the shuttle is movable from the first jaw track to the second jaw track via the first pusher; and a second pusher (Figure 32; 3213’), wherein the shuttle is movable from the second jaw track to the first jaw track via the second pusher, wherein suturing manipulating device has an open configuration (Figure 29A) and a closed configuration (Figure 29B), and wherein the second jaw is closer to the first jaw when the suture manipulating device is in the closed configuration than when the suture manipulating device is in the open configuration (Figure 29B), further comprising a control for moving the second jaw relative to the first jaw, wherein the control is lockable in a closed position via the lock ([¶ 0186]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the third control of the Hart reference include a lock as in the Saliman reference to assist with tying knots and when passing the suture between the jaws ([¶ 0016]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Piraka reference (US 5,632,751) teaches a suture manipulating device with jaws, jaw tracks, a shuttle and pushers; the Kortenbach et al. reference (US 5,814,054) teaches a suture manipulating device with jaws, pushers, a shuttle, and a toggle switch; the Selmon et al. reference (US 6,217,549) teaches a pair of jaws that open and close in alternative methods; and the Mclawhorn et al. reference (US 2011/0152891) also teaches a suture manipulating device with jaws, jaw tracks, a shuttle, and pushers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN TRUYEN TON whose telephone number is (571)270-5122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; EST 10:00 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
/MARTIN T TON/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 3/20/2026