DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the communicated dated 03 February 2026 concerning application number 17/747,695 effectively filed on 18 May 2022.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of Claims
3. Claims 1-27 are pending, of which claims 1 and 16-17 have been amended; claims 21-27 have been withdrawn; and claims 1-20 are under consideration for patentability. The Examiner respectfully submits that claims 21-27 were previously withdrawn, but the current status of claims 21-27 (e.g., withdrawn or cancelled) was not mentioned in the claims filed on 03 February 2026. Therefore, the Examiner still considers claims 21-27 to be withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments dated 03 February 2026, referred to herein as “the Arguments”, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner has withdrawn the 112(a) rejections of claims 16-17 in response to the amendments.
The Examiner has addressed the amended limitations within the updated text below.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claims 16-17 contains minor typographical errors.
Claim 16, line 13: The Examiner suggests changing “wherein the cutter head further comprises an inner cutting head” to “wherein the cutter head further comprises an inner cutter head”.
Claim 17, lines 13-14: The Examiner suggests changing “wherein the cutter head further comprises an inner cutting head concentrically received within the outer cutter head” to “wherein the inner cutter head is concentrically received within an outer cutter head”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. Claim 17 is 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 17 recites the limitation "the outer cutter head" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
8. Claims 1-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 2020/0352579 A1) in view of Nelson et al. (US 2013/0304070 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Davis teaches a surgical tissue shaver (the surgical system 10 comprises a surgical instrument 12 having a cutting mechanism or shaver [0036, 0046, 0055, 0060-0061]. For example, the surgical instrument 12 includes the edges 42a, 44a, and 46a which define a cutting surface [0036, 0046, 0055, 0060-0061]) comprising:
a shaft extending from a proximal shaft end to a distal shaft end (the surgical instrument 12 comprises a tube 14 that defines a shaft 56 [0056, 0062]. Specifically, figure 1 and figures 3-4 illustrates the shaft 56 of the tube 14 having a proximal end and a distal end 18 [0056, 0062, FIG. 1, FIGS. 3-4]), the shaft comprising a tubular body defining a cannula extending from the proximal shaft end to the distal shaft end (figure 3 illustrates the shaft 56 of the tube 14 including an inner surface 38 that defines a cannula or tubular channel 40 [0059, 0062, FIG. 3]. Specifically, figure 3 illustrates the cannula or tubular channel 40 extending through the shaft 56 of the tube 14 [0059, 0062, FIG. 3]); and
a cutter head at the distal shaft end (as stated previously above, figures 1 and 3-4 illustrates the shaft of the tube 14 having a distal end 18 [0056, 0062, FIGS. 1, FIGS. 3-4]. Specifically, figure 4 and figure 7 illustrates the edges 42a, 44a, and 46a defining a cutting surface or cutting head that is disposed at the distal end 18 [0060-0061, FIG. 4, FIG. 7]) and extending along a longitudinal axis (figures 4-5 and figure 7 illustrates the edges 42a, 44a, and 46a defining a cutting surface that extends along a longitudinal axis X1 [FIGS. 4-5, FIG. 7, 0060-0061]), the cutter head having a cutter opening in fluid communication with the cannula (the edges 42a, 44a, and 46a of the teeth 48 are configured to cut and/or remove tissue at a surgical site and guide tissue into the cavity 54 [0061]. Furthermore, the opening 58 is in fluid communication with the cannula or tubular channel 40 and configured for disposal of material (e.g., tissue in cavity 54 that was cut by the teeth 48) [0061-0062]. For example, a suction system is provided within the tubular channel 40 to vacuum or move the material (e.g., tissue or debris) from cavity 54 through the opening 58 and into the tubular channel 40 [0058, 0062, FIG. 4]), wherein at least a portion of the cutter opening extending along the longitudinal axis is defined between a first row of teeth and a second row of teeth opposite the first row of teeth with respect to the longitudinal axis (figures 4-5 illustrates the opening 58 extending along the longitudinal axis X1 that is defined between a first and second row of teeth 48 [0060-0061, FIGS. 4-5]. Specifically, figures 4-5 and figure 7 illustrates the first row of teeth 48 having tooth edges 42a that are disposed along the side wall 42 [0060-0061, FIGS. 4-5, FIG. 7]. Meanwhile, figures 4-5 and figure 7 illustrates the second row of teeth 48 having tooth edges 44a that are disposed along the side wall 44 which is opposite to the side wall 42 [0060-0061, FIGS. 4-5]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the spaced apart side walls 42 and 44 are connected by a transverse wall 46 [0060-0061, FIG. 6]).
wherein at least one tooth of the first row of teeth is defined by a respective proximal tooth surface and a respective distal tooth surface that intersect at a respective tooth edge (Applicant’s drawings (FIG. 6) illustrates the proximal tooth surface 614a and the distal tooth surface 614b intersecting at the tooth edge 614c [specification: column 6 lines 21-24]. Similarly, Davis provides figure 5 which illustrates the side wall 42 having tooth edges 42a that are intersected by proximal and distal tooth surfaces [0060-0061, FIG. 5]. Specifically, the Examiner has provided an annotated figure that illustrates the tooth edges 42a being intersected by proximal and distal tooth surfaces [see the annotated figure below]); and
PNG
media_image1.png
241
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein a line defined by the respective tooth edge is oriented at a respective angle ranging from 0° to 90° relative to the longitudinal axis (the tooth edges 42a and 44a are each disposed at angle relative to the longitudinal axis X1 [0060-0061, FIG. 5]. Specifically, the angle ranges from 0° to 90° [0060, FIG. 5]).
Davis does not explicitly teach wherein the respective angle is less than 90°.
However, Applicant’s range of less than 90° lies within Davis’ angle range of 0° to 90° ([0060]). Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Based on the overlapping range, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the tooth edge to have an angle range less than 90° (MPEP 2144.05). The advantage of such modification may provide the tooth edge with an angle that improves the scraping or cutting of the tissue ([0060-0061]).
Davis does not explicitly teach wherein the line defined by the respective tooth edge extends within a plane orthogonal to the longitudinal axis that has only a single point in the plane being orthogonal to the longitudinal axis.
The prior art by Nelson is analogous to Davis, as they both teach a tissue shaver comprising teeth ([abstract, 0222]).
Nelson teaches wherein the line defined by the respective tooth edge extends within a plane orthogonal to the longitudinal axis that has only a single point in the plane being orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (the cutting edges or teeth 5204 define a line that extends within a plane that is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis [0222]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Davis’ line of the respective tooth edge to extend within a plane orthogonal to the longitudinal axis, as taught by Nelson. The advantage of such modification will allow the teeth to be placed orthogonally to the tissue to create a “jack-hammer” like motion to carve a tunnel opening in the tissue (see paragraphs [0164, 0167, 0222] by Nelson).
Regarding claim 2, Davis teaches wherein the respective angle is an acute angle opening in a distal direction (the distal tooth surface of each tooth edge 42a forms a respective acute angle [0060, FIGS. 4-5]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the annotated figure indicates the distal tooth surface of the tooth edges 42a [see the annotated figure above]).
Regarding claim 3, Davis teaches wherein the respective angle is an acute angle opening in a proximal direction (the proximal tooth surface of each tooth edge 42a forms a respective acute angle [0060, FIGS. 4-5]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the annotated figure indicates the proximal tooth surface of the tooth edges 42a [see the annotated figure above]).
Regarding claim 4, Davis teaches wherein the second row of teeth is a mirror image of the first row of teeth (figure 4 and figures 6-7 illustrates the second row of teeth 48 on the side wall 44 having tooth edges 44a which are a mirror image of the first row of teeth 48 on the side wall 42 having tooth edges 42a [0060-0061, FIG. 4, FIGS. 6-7]).
Regarding claim 5, Davis in view of Nelson suggests the surgical tissue shaver of claim 1. Davis teaches wherein at least two teeth of the first row of teeth is each defined by a respective proximal tooth surface and a respective distal tooth surface that intersect at a respective tooth edge oriented at a respective angle ranging from 0° to 90° relative to the longitudinal axis (figure 5 illustrates the first row of teeth 48 on the side wall 42 having tooth edges 42a that are intersected by proximal and distal tooth surfaces [0060-0061, FIG. 5]. Specifically, the Examiner has provided an annotated figure that illustrates the tooth edges 42a being intersected by proximal and distal tooth surfaces [see the annotated figure above]. As stated in claim 1, the tooth edges 42a are each disposed at angle that ranges from 0° to 90° relative to the longitudinal axis X1 [0060-0061, FIGS. 4-5]).
Davis and Nelson do not explicitly teach wherein the respective angle is less than 90°.
However, Applicant’s range of less than 90° lies within Davis’ angle range of 0° to 90° ([0060]). Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Based on the overlapping range, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure at least two of the tooth edges to have a respective angle range less than 90° (MPEP 2144.05). The advantage of such modification may provide the tooth edges with a respective angle that improves the scraping or cutting of the tissue ([0060-0061]).
Regarding claim 6, Davis teaches wherein the respective angles all are acute angles opening in a distal direction (the distal tooth surface of each tooth edge 42a forms a respective acute angle [0060, FIGS. 4-5]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the annotated figure indicates the distal tooth surface of the tooth edges 42a [see the annotated figure above]).
Regarding claim 7, Davis in view of Nelson suggests the surgical tissue shaver of claim 6. Davis and Nelson do not explicitly teach wherein a respective magnitude of the respective angle of a first one of the at least two teeth is different from a respective magnitude of the respective angle of a second one of the at least two teeth.
However, Davis teaches each of teeth to form a respective angle having a magnitude that ranges from 0° to 90° (the first row of teeth 48 on the side wall 42 have tooth edges 42a that each form a respective angle ranging from 0° to 90° [0060-0061, FIGS. 4-5, FIG. 7]). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try to modify the magnitude of the respective angle of the first tooth to be different than the magnitude of the respective angle of the second tooth (MPEP 2143). For example, the first tooth can be configured to form an angle having a magnitude of 30° and the second tooth can be configured to form an angle having a magnitude of 45° ([0060-0061]). The advantage of the different magnitudes of the angles may improve the scraping and/or cutting of the tissue ([0060-0061]).
Regarding claim 8, Davis teaches wherein the respective angle of a first one of the at least two teeth is an acute angle opening in a distal direction (the distal tooth surface of each tooth edge 42a forms a respective acute angle [0060, FIGS. 4-5]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the annotated figure indicates the distal tooth surface of the tooth edges 42a [see the annotated figure above]); and
the respective angle of a second one of the at least two teeth is an acute angle opening in a proximal direction (the proximal tooth surface of each tooth edge 42a forms a respective acute angle [0060, FIGS. 4-5]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the annotated figure indicates the proximal tooth surface of the tooth edges 42a [see the annotated figure above]).
Regarding claim 9, Davis teaches wherein the second row of teeth is a mirror image of the first row of teeth (figure 4 and figures 6-7 illustrates the second row of teeth 48 on the side wall 44 having tooth edges 44a which are a mirror image of the first row of teeth 48 on the side wall 42 having tooth edges 42a [0060-0061, FIG. 4, FIGS. 6-7]).
Regarding claim 10, Davis in view of Nelson suggests the surgical tissue shaver of claim 1. Davis teaches herein every tooth of the first row of teeth is each defined by a respective proximal tooth surface and a respective distal tooth surface that intersect at a respective tooth edge, and wherein the respective tooth edge is oriented at a respective angle ranging from 0° to 90° relative to the longitudinal axis (figure 5 illustrates the first row of teeth 48 on the side wall 42 having tooth edges 42a that are intersected by proximal and distal tooth surfaces [0060-0061, FIG. 5]. Specifically, the Examiner has provided an annotated figure that illustrates the tooth edges 42a being intersected by proximal and distal tooth surfaces [see the annotated figure above]. As stated in claim 1, the tooth edges 42a are each disposed at angle that ranges from 0° to 90° relative to the longitudinal axis X1 [0060-0061, FIGS. 4-5]).
Davis and Nelson do not explicitly teach wherein the respective angle is less than 90°.
However, Applicant’s range of less than 90° lies within Davis’ angle range of 0° to 90° ([0060]). Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Based on the overlapping range, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure each of the tooth edges to have a respective angle range less than 90° (MPEP 2144.05). The advantage of such modification may provide each of the tooth edges with a respective angle that improves the scraping or cutting of the tissue ([0060-0061]).
Regarding claim 11, Davis teaches wherein the respective angle of every tooth of the first row of teeth is an acute angle opening in a distal direction (as stated previously, in claim 1, figures 4-5 and figure 7 illustrates the first row of teeth 48 having tooth edges 42a that are disposed along the side wall 42 [0060-0061, FIGS. 4-5, FIG. 7]. Specifically, the distal tooth surface of each tooth edge 42a forms a respective acute angle [0060, FIGS. 4-5]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the annotated figure indicates the distal tooth surface of the tooth edges 42a [see the annotated figure above]).
Regarding claim 12, Davis teaches wherein the respective angle of every tooth of the first row of teeth is an acute angle opening in a proximal direction (as stated previously, in claim 1, figures 4-5 and figure 7 illustrates the first row of teeth 48 having tooth edges 42a that are disposed along the side wall 42 [0060-0061, FIGS. 4-5, FIG. 7]. Specifically, the proximal tooth surface of each tooth edge 42a forms a respective acute angle [0060, FIGS. 4-5]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the annotated figure indicates the proximal tooth surface of the tooth edges 42a [see the annotated figure above]).
Regarding claim 13, Davis teaches wherein the respective angle of one or more teeth of the first row of teeth is an acute angle opening in a distal direction (as stated previously, in claim 1, figures 4-5 and figure 7 illustrates the first row of teeth 48 having tooth edges 42a that are disposed along the side wall 42 [0060-0061, FIGS. 4-5, FIG. 7]. Specifically, the distal tooth surface of each tooth edge 42a forms a respective acute angle [0060, FIGS. 4-5]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the annotated figure indicates the distal tooth surface of the tooth edges 42a [see the annotated figure above]); and
the respective angle of one or more teeth of the first row of teeth is an acute angle opening in a proximal direction (as stated previously, in claim 1, figures 4-5 and figure 7 illustrates the first row of teeth 48 having tooth edges 42a that are disposed along the side wall 42 [0060-0061, FIGS. 4-5, FIG. 7]. Specifically, the proximal tooth surface of each tooth edge 42a forms a respective acute angle [0060, FIGS. 4-5]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the annotated figure indicates the proximal tooth surface of the tooth edges 42a [see the annotated figure above]).
Regarding claim 14, Davis teaches wherein the second row of teeth is a mirror image of the first row of teeth (figure 4 and figures 6-7 illustrates the second row of teeth 48 on the side wall 44 having tooth edges 44a which are a mirror image of the first row of teeth 48 on the side wall 42 having tooth edges 42a [0060-0061, FIG. 4, FIGS. 6-7]).
Regarding claim 15, Davis in view of Nelson suggests the surgical tissue shaver of claim 1. Davis teaches wherein at least two teeth of the first row of teeth and at least two teeth of the second row of teeth is each defined by a respective proximal tooth surface and a respective distal tooth surface that intersect at a respective tooth edge (figure 5 illustrates the first row of teeth 48 on the side wall 42 having tooth edges 42a that are intersected by proximal and distal tooth surfaces [0060-0061, FIG. 5]. Meanwhile, figure 4 illustrates the second row of teeth on the side wall 44 having tooth edges 44a that are intersected by proximal and distal tooth surfaces [0060-0061, FIG. 4]. Specifically, the Examiner has provided annotated figures below that illustrates the respective tooth edges 42a and 44a being intersected by proximal and distal tooth surfaces [see the annotated figures below]); and
PNG
media_image1.png
241
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
331
661
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the respective tooth edge is oriented at a respective angle ranging from 0° to 90° relative to the longitudinal axis (figure 5 illustrates the first row of teeth 48 on the side wall 42 having tooth edges 42a that are intersected by proximal and distal tooth surfaces [0060-0061, FIG. 5]. Specifically, the Examiner has provided an annotated figure that illustrates the tooth edges 42a being intersected by proximal and distal tooth surfaces [see the annotated figure above]. As stated in claim 1, the tooth edges 42a are each disposed at angle that ranges from 0° to 90° relative to the longitudinal axis X1 [0060-0061, FIGS. 4-5]).
Davis and Nelson do not explicitly teach wherein the respective angle is less than 90°.
However, Applicant’s range of less than 90° lies within Davis’ angle range of 0° to 90° ([0060]). Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Based on the overlapping range, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure each of the tooth edges to have a respective angle range less than 90° (MPEP 2144.05). The advantage of such modification may provide each of the tooth edges with a respective angle that improves the scraping or cutting of the tissue ([0060-0061]).
Regarding claim 18, Davis in view of Nelson suggests the surgical tissue shaver of claim 1. Davis teaches wherein the respective angle is an acute angle having a magnitude of 0° to 90° (plurality of teeth 48 includes tooth edges 42a, 44a, and 46a that are disposed at an acute angle having a magnitude of 0° to 90° [0060-0061]).
Davis and Nelson does not explicitly teach wherein the acute angle has a magnitude of 85° to 45°.
However, Applicant’s acute angle range of 85° to 45° lies within Davis’ acute angle range of 0° to 90° ([0060]). Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Based on the overlapping range, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the acute angle of the tooth edge to have magnitude that ranges from 85° to 45° (MPEP 2144.05). The advantage of such modification may provide the tooth edge with a respective angle that improves the scraping or cutting of the tissue ([0060-0061]).
Regarding claim 19, Davis in view of Nelson suggests the surgical tissue shaver of claim 1. Davis teaches wherein the respective angle is an acute angle having a magnitude of 0° to 90° (plurality of teeth 48 includes tooth edges 42a, 44a, and 46a that are disposed at an acute angle having a magnitude of 0° to 90° [0060-0061]).
Davis and Nelson do not explicitly teach wherein the acute angle has a magnitude of 85° to 75°.
However, Applicant’s acute angle range of 85° to 75° lies within Davis’ acute angle range of 0° to 90° ([0060]). Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Based on the overlapping range, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the acute angle of the tooth edge to have magnitude that ranges from 85° to 75° (MPEP 2144.05). The advantage of such modification may provide the tooth edge with a respective angle that improves the scraping or cutting of the tissue ([0060-0061]).
Regarding claim 20, Davis in view of Nelson suggests the surgical tissue shaver of claim 1. Davis teaches wherein the respective angle is an acute angle having a magnitude of 0° to 90° (plurality of teeth 48 includes tooth edges 42a, 44a, and 46a that are disposed at an acute angle having a magnitude of 0° to 90° [0060-0061]).
Davis and Nelson do not explicitly teach wherein the acute angle has a magnitude of 80°
However, Applicant’s acute angle of 80° lies within Davis’ acute angle range of 0° to 90° ([0060]). Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Based on the overlapping range, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the acute angle of the tooth edge to have magnitude that ranges from 80° (MPEP 2144.05). The advantage of such modification may provide the tooth edge with a respective angle that improves the scraping or cutting of the tissue ([0060-0061]).
9. Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. in view of Nelson et al., further in view of Dickson (US 2023/0073758 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Davis in view of Nelson suggests the surgical tissue shaver of claim 1. Davis and Nelson do not explicitly teach wherein the shaft further comprises:
an outer shaft; and
wherein the cutter head comprises an outer cutter head having an outer cutter opening in fluid communication with the cannula, wherein at least a portion of the outer cutter opening extends along the longitudinal axis, wherein the first row of teeth comprises a first row of outer teeth and wherein the second row of teeth comprises a second row of outer teeth opposite the first row of outer teeth with respect to the longitudinal axis;
wherein the cutter head further comprises an inner cutting head concentrically received within the outer cutter head, and the inner cutter head being rotatable relative to the outer cutter head about the longitudinal axis.
The prior art by Dickson is analogous to Davis, as they both teach surgical instrument comprising teeth that are configured to cut tissue ([abstract]).
Dickson teaches an outer shaft (figures 5 and 7 illustrates the outer shaft or outer tubular member 340 extending from a proximal end to a distal end [0040, 0042, FIG. 5, FIG. 7]); and
wherein the cutter head comprises an outer cutter head (figure 5 illustrates the shaver 310 having an outer cutting head or window 342 (e.g., blade) at the distal end of the outer tubular member 340 and extending along an outer longitudinal axis [0045, 0047-0049, FIG 5]) having an outer cutter opening in fluid communication with the cannula (the outer tubular member 340 comprises an outer cutting window 342 having an opening [0045, 0047-0049, FIG 5]. Specifically, the opening of the outer cutting window 342 is in fluid communication with the central pathway or cannula of the outer tubular member 340 [0013, 0044-0045, 0047, 0049]. This allows the tissue to be suctioned or vacuumed from the outer cutting window 342 through the central pathway or cannula of the outer tubular member 340 and further into a central lumen of the inner tubular member 330 [0013, 0044-0045, 0047, 0049]), wherein at least a portion of the outer cutter opening extends along the longitudinal axis, wherein the first row of teeth comprises a first row of outer teeth and wherein the second row of teeth comprises a second row of outer teeth opposite the first row of outer teeth with respect to the longitudinal axis (figure 5 illustrates the opening of the outer cutting window 342 extending along a longitudinal axis that is defined between a first and second row of outer teeth 344 [0047]. Specifically figure 5 illustrates the second row of outer teeth 344 being arranged opposite to the first row of outer teeth 344 [FIG. 5]);
wherein the cutter head further comprises an inner cutting head concentrically received within the outer cutter head (figure 5 illustrates the inner tubular member 330 having an inner cutting head window 332 that is concentrically received within the outer cutting window 342 of the outer tubular member 340 [0047-0048, FIG. 5]), and the inner cutter head being rotatable relative to the outer cutter head about the longitudinal axis (the inner cutting head window 332 of the inner tubular member 330 is rotated relative to the outer cutting head window 342 of the outer tubular member 340 [0042, 0044, 0047, 0049, FIG. 5]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the surgical tissue shaver suggested by Davis in view of Nelson to include an outer cutting head having an opening that extends between two rows of opposing outer teeth and the opening being in fluid communication with the cannula, as taught by Dickson. This modification is beneficial, as the outer teeth will provide more cutting points which allows the tissue to be easily cut and vacuumed through the cannula or passageway (see the [abstract] and paragraphs [0013, 0044, 0047-0048] by Dickson). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cutter head suggested by Davis in view of Nelson to comprise an inner cutter head that is concentrically received within the outer cutter head and the inner cutter head being rotated relative to the outer cutter head about the longitudinal axis, as taught by Dickson. The advantage of such modification may improve the cutting or severing of the tissue (see paragraphs [0042, 0044, 0047, 0049] by Dickson).
Regarding claim 17, Davis in view of Nelson suggests the surgical tissue shaver of claim 1. Davis teaches wherein the shaft comprises:
an inner shaft (the blade assembly 28 includes an inner shaft 62 that is disposed in the channel 40 and rotates relative to the tube 14 [0064-0065, FIG. 3, FIG. 8]. Specifically, figure 8 illustrates the inner shaft 62 having a proximal end and a distal end [0065-0065, FIG. 8]).
Davis and Nelson do not explicitly teach wherein the cutter head comprises an inner cutter head having an inner cutter opening in fluid communication with the cannula, wherein at least a portion of the inner cutter opening extends along the longitudinal axis, wherein the first row of teeth comprises a first row of inner teeth and wherein the second row of teeth comprises a second row of inner teeth opposite the first row of inner teeth with respect to the longitudinal axis;
wherein the inner cutter head is concentrically received within the outer cutter head, and the inner cutter head being rotatable relative to the outer cutter head about the longitudinal axis.
The prior art by Dickson is analogous to Davis, as they both teach surgical instrument comprising teeth that are configured to cut tissue ([abstract]).
Dickson teaches wherein the cutter head comprises an inner cutter head (figure 5 illustrates the shaver 310 having an inner cutting head or window 332 at the distal end of the inner tubular member 330 [0040, 0045, 0047-0049, FIG. 5]) having an inner cutter opening in fluid communication with the cannula, wherein at least a portion of the inner cutter opening extends along the longitudinal axis (figure 5 illustrates the inner tubular member 330 comprising an inner cutting window 332 having an opening that extends along a longitudinal axis [0045, 0047-0049, FIG 5]. Specifically, the opening of the inner cutting window 332 is in fluid communication with the central pathway or cannula of the inner tubular member 330 [0013, 0042, 0044-0045, 0049]. This allows the tissue to be suctioned or vacuumed from the inner cutting window 332 through the central pathway or cannula of the outer tubular member 330 [0013, 0042, 0044-0045, 0049]), wherein the first row of teeth comprises a first row of inner teeth and wherein the second row of teeth comprises a second row of inner teeth opposite the first row of inner teeth with respect to the longitudinal axis (as stated previously above, figure 5 illustrates the inner cutting window 332 extending along a longitudinal axis [0040, 0045, 0047-0049, FIG. 5]. Specifically, the inner cutting window 332 comprises a first and second row of inner teeth 334 [0047-0048, 0050, FIG. 5]. Furthermore, figure 5 illustrates the second row of inner teeth 334 being arranged opposite to the first row of inner teeth 334 [FIG. 5]); and
wherein the inner cutter head is concentrically received within a outer cutter head (figure 5 illustrates the inner tubular member 330 having an inner cutting head window 332 that is concentrically received within the outer cutting window 342 of the outer tubular member 340 [0047-0048, FIG. 5]), and the inner cutter head being rotatable relative to the outer cutter head about the longitudinal axis (the inner cutting head window 332 of the inner tubular member 330 is rotated relative to the outer cutting head window 342 of the outer tubular member 340 [0042, 0044, 0047, 0049, FIG. 5]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the surgical tissue shaver suggested by Davis in view of Nelson to include an inner cutting head having an opening that extends between two rows of opposing inner teeth and the opening being in fluid communication with the cannula, as taught by Dickson. This modification is beneficial, as the inner teeth will provide more cutting points which allows the tissue to be easily cut and vacuumed through the cannula or passageway (see the [abstract] and paragraphs [0013, 0044, 0047-0048] by Dickson). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the inner cutter head suggested by Davis in view of Nelson and Dickson to be concentrically received within the outer cutter head and the inner cutter head being rotated relative to the outer cutter head about the longitudinal axis, as taught by Dickson. The advantage of such modification may improve the cutting or severing of the tissue (see paragraphs [0042, 0044, 0047, 0049] by Dickson).
Statement on Communication via Internet
10. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of the applicant. All Internet communications between USPTO employees and applicants must be made using USPTO tools.
Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence and response will be placed in the appropriate patent application. Except for correspondence that only sets up an interview time, all correspondence between the Office and the applicant including applicant's representative must be placed in the appropriate patent application. If an email contains any information beyond scheduling an interview such as an interview agenda or authorization, it must be placed in the application.
For those applications where applicant wishes to communicate with the examiner via Internet communications, e.g., email or video conferencing tools, the following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
"Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file."
Please refer to MPEP 502.03 for guidance on Communications via Internet.
Conclusion
11. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BRENDON SOLOMON whose telephone number is (571)270-7208. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am -4:30pm.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached on (571)272-4156. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.B.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights