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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 21-33 in the reply filed on 20 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 34-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse.
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 21-33 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.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites “an architecture resembling a native extracellular matrix”. This limitation is indefinite in two respects. First, the native extracellular matrix is not disclosed or claimed, and as such the limitation is defined relative to a variable element. Second, the term “resembling” is a term of degree and the specification does not make clear in what way the claimed fiber matrix must resemble the native extracellular matrix or set forth any metric for determining what constitutes sufficient resemblance as to fall within the scope of the claim.
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) 21-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pre-Grant Publication 2010/0297208 to Fry et al. (Fry hereinafter) in view of US Pre-Grant Publication 2004/0175408 to Chun et al. (Chun).
Regarding claim 21, Fry teaches a method of tissue repair comprising implanting (see paragraphs 16, 82) a resorbable fiber matrix (scaffold) at a surgical site (paragraph 16), the matrix having a first non-woven fiber composition (polymer, see paragraph 25) and a second non-woven fiber composition (copolymer, see paragraph 29) each of which is resorbable. Fry teaches that the matrix may reinforce soft tissue (paragraph 82). Further, as best understood by the examiner, Fry teaches an architecture resembling a native extracellular matrix. Fry does not explicitly teach tensile strength. Chun teaches another tissue reinforcement implant generally, and particularly teaches that “suitable elastomers should have a tensile strength greater than about 500 psi” (paragraph 40). Chun thus teaches that tensile strength should be selected in a tissue implant to be appropriate to the process. Beyond that, the examiner notes that a tensile strength measured in units of force (i.e. Newtons) is dependent on the dimensions (particularly cross-sectional area) of the article being measured, as is generally understood in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to select a material having an appropriate tensile strength to the application of the tissue repair implant of Fry as taught by Chun. Any remaining different therewith is merely a difference in relative dimensions, which has been held to be non-obvious (MPEP 2144.04 IV. A) when evidence of criticality is not present (as is currently the case).
Regarding claim 22, Fry teaches resorption (paragraphs 27, 59).
Regarding claim 23, Chun teaches closing the surgical site after implantation (paragraph 104), which those of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate is a conventional step encouraging healing in the patient. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to close the surgical site as taught by Chun after implantation of the matrix of Fry in order to promote healing.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Chun teaches securing an implant with sutures to affix the implant to a damaged site (paragraph 78). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to secure the matrix with sutures as taught by Chun in order to affix the implant to a target site.
Regarding claim 26, Chun teaches cutting an implant to size in order to closely mimic the shape of the defect it is being used to repair (paragraph 34). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to cut the implant of Fry to fit the surgical site in order to mimic the shape of the defect as taught by Chun.
Regarding claim 27, Fry teaches hydrating the fiber matrix (paragraph 135) prior to implantation.
Regarding claim 28, Fry teaches pore sizes from 1-25 microns (paragraph 69, one micron equaling one micrometer), which overlaps the claimed range and renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 29, Fry teaches pore sizes from 1.2-4.0 microns (paragraph 18), which falls into the claimed range and renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claims 30-32, Fry teaches the use of poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid (paragraph 29) and polydioxanone (paragraph 31) in a blend (paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 33, Fry teaches that the fiber compositions break down into glycolic acid (paragraph 27).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP E STIMPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a-4p.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at 571-270-1744. 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.
/PHILIP E STIMPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 15 April 2026
Prosecution Insights