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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 26,2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on June 30, 2025 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because the text of withdrawn claim 14 should be included in the claim listing. Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the rejection set forth below addressing the amendments to the claims.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkinson et al (US 5196020) in view of Nabity (US 5647260).
Regarding claim 1, Atkinson et al (hereafter Atkinson) discloses a skin mesher comprising: a base (11,19) comprising a first cradle (11) and a second cradle (19) attached to the cover; a cutting roller (60); and a propulsion roller (40); and a cover (21, 12) attached to the base, the cover comprising a crank (47 in US 5004468, incorporated by reference), the crank operates to rotate the cutting roller and the propulsion roller (C:2, L:55-65); wherein the first and second cradle each seat at least a portion of the cutting roller and the propulsion roller in vertical alignment (figure 1), wherein the cutting roller is removable from the base (figure 2). Atkinson does not specifically disclose the propulsion roller is also removable from the base. However, Nabity teaches a roller cutting machine comprising a plurality of rollers (26, 32, 34, 36) coupled to a base (14), wherein it was known in the art at the time of the invention to make all of the plurality rollers of a roller cutting machine removable for replacement (C:3, L:5-10). Therefore, it would have been in the level of one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the propulsion roller of Atkinson also removable from the base, as taught as well known in the art for roller cutting machines for replacement by Nabity, in order to allow replacement, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
PNG
media_image1.png
546
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Atkinson in view of Nabity teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, wherein the mesher further comprises a carrier tray (90 in US 5004468, incorporated by reference), with a top and bottom surface wherein both the top and the bottom surface are suitable to hold a skin material (C:2, L:14-24, carrier 90 can be flipped over. This limitation is directed to a functional limitation. Since carrier is shown to be flat, either side is capable of holding a skin material. Therefore, the prior art meets the limitations since it meets all of the structural requirements of the claim and is capable of performing the recited functions).
Regarding claim 3, Atkinson in view of Nabity teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, wherein the cutting roller further comprises a shaft (61, 63, in US 5004468, incorporated by reference) and a repeating pattern of at least one first cutting blade (62a), at least one spacer (64a), and at least one second cutting blade (62a in US 5004468, incorporated by reference) slid onto the shaft (figure 7 in US 5004468, incorporated by reference)
Regarding claim 5, Atkinson in view of Nabity teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 1 wherein the cover further comprises a guard (70) configured to be around at least a portion of the cutting roller (figure 5).
Regarding claim 6, Atkinson in view of Nabity teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 5 wherein the guard contains a plurality of openings (74, figure 6) formed therethrough.
Regarding claim 8, Atkinson in view of Nabity teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, wherein the base further comprises a removable infeed tray (90).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkinson et al (US 5196020) in view of Nabity (US 5647260), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Chong (US 6094828).
Regarding claim 4, Atkinson in view of Nabity teaches all of the limitations set forth in cl 3 wherein the cutting roller further comprises at least two bearings (66 in US 5004468, incorporated by reference), but does not disclose the bearings have a larger diameter than the at least one first cutting blade and at least one second cutting blade. Chong discloses a cutting wheel supported by a generally cylindrical stepped bearing with an abutment ring having an outside diameter slightly larger than the outside diameter of the cutting ring in order to prevent overwear of the cutting ring and allowing wear that does occur to be uniform and gradual (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the device of Atkinson in view of Nabity comprise a bearing for engagement with the base and cover, such that the bearing has an outside diameter slightly larger than the outside diameter of the cutting ring, as taught by Chong, in order to prevent overwear of the cutting ring and allowing wear that does occur to be uniform and gradual.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkinson et al (US 5196020) in view of Nabity (US 5647260), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Corcoran (US 20050268761).
Regarding claim 7, Atkinson in view of Nabity teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, but does not specifically teach the base further comprises a texture on its bottom 2 configured to resist movement. Corcoran et al (hereafter Corcoran) teaches it was known in the art at the time of the invention for a die press with removable cartridge rollers with a crank shaft comprise a base with a plurality of feet with a rubber footpad in order to provide a non-slip surface of the device when it is resting on a table top or otherwise flat surface (paragraph 0054). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a plurality of feet with a textured rubber footpad on the base of Atkinson in view of Nabity, in order to provide a non-slip surface of the device when it is resting on a table top or otherwise flat surface, as taught as known in the art for cutting devices at the time of the invention by Corcoran.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkinson et al (US 5196020) in view of Wang (US 8869690).
Regarding claim 15, Atkinson teaches a skin mesher comprising: a cover (16, 18, 28), a crank (47 in US 504468, incorporated by reference) a base (11) pivotally connected to the cover (figure 2), the cover is configured to maintain an open position and a closed position (figure 1, figure 2); a cutting roller (60) comprising a first gear (65); and a propulsion roller (40) comprising a second gear (55); wherein the cutting roller and the propulsion roller are removably seated (device can be completely disassembled to remove therefrom) within the base and when the cover is in the closed position (figure 1), operation of the crank causes rotation of first gear of the cutting roller (47, US 5004468 incorporated by reference. Atkinson does not disclose an additional drive gear directly rotating the first gear and that the cover comprises the crank. However, Wang teaches a roller-type cutting machine, wherein it was well known in the art at the time of the invention to have a cover (30, 31) with a crank (33) and a drive gear (332) connected to the crank, a base (312, 311) attached to the cover (31), a top roller (34) comprising a first gear (35,36), the first gear aligned with the drive gear (figure 6) and the first gear directly rotated by the drive gear; and a bottom propulsion roller (37) comprising a second gear(38) aligned with the first gear, wherein it was known in the art at the time the invention to utilize this arrangement as a known transmission gear on an end of the crankshaft to drive a gear positioned on one end of a roller shaft. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrange the rollers and crank, as taught by Wang, in the device of Zolotov such that the crank is connected to an additional drive gear directly rotating the top gear of the cutting roller instead of directly to the gear of the propulsion roller, as an art-recognized equivalent crank and transmission gear configuration for roller cutting machines at the time of the invention, since the use of transmission gears well known in the art to reduce the rotational force needed to feed the medium through the rollers or cause slower rotation of the rollers relative to the speed of rotation of the crank handle and it has been held that mere substitution of art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention involves routine skill in the art. As a result, it further would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to reconfigure the device such that the crank as part of the cover in order for the drive gear to directly rotate the first gear of the upper cutting roller, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 9, 10, 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zolotov (US 20140107668) in view of Wang (US 8869690).
Regarding claim 9, Zolotov discloses a skin mesher comprising: a cover (16, 18, 28, 32) comprising a crank (32); a base (14) attached to the cover; a cutting roller (20) comprising a first gear (36); and a propulsion roller (22) comprising a second gear (34) aligned with the first gear; wherein the cutting roller comprises a first cutting blade and a second cutting blade (40a, 40b, figure 3), wherein the first cutting blade and second cutting blade are in a stacked configuration on a shaft of the cutting roller (figure 2) and each blade further comprises at least one notch (52) and at least one tooth (54, figure 4). Zolotov does not specifically disclose a drive gear in addition to the first and second gear aligned with the first gear, wherein the first gear is directly rotated by the drive gear. However, Wang teaches a roller-type cutting machine, wherein it was well known in the art at the time of the invention to have a cover (30, 31) with a crank (33) and a drive gear (332) connected to the crank, a base (312, 311) attached to the cover (31), a top roller (34) comprising a first gear (35,36), the first gear aligned with the drive gear (figure 6) and the first gear directly rotated by the drive gear; and a bottom propulsion roller (37) comprising a second gear(38) aligned with the first gear, wherein it was known in the art at the time the invention to utilize this arrangement as a known transmission gear on an end of the crankshaft to drive a gear positioned on one end of a roller shaft. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrange the rollers and crank, as taught by Wang, in the device of Zolotov such that the crank is connected to an additional drive gear directly rotating the first gear of the cutting roller instead of directly to the gear of the propulsion roller, as an art-recognized equivalent crank and transmission gear configuration for roller cutting machines at the time of the invention, since the use of transmission gears well known in the art to reduce the rotational force needed to feed the medium through the rollers or cause slower rotation of the rollers relative to the speed of rotation of the crank handle and it has been held that mere substitution of art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention involves routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Zolotov in view of Wang teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 9 wherein the first cutting blade and second cutting blade further comprise an aperture (56) formed therethrough configured to match the shape of the shaft (paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 13, Zolotov in view of Wang teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 9, wherein the cutting roller further comprises at least two bearings (66, in US 5004468, incorporated by reference) and the propulsion roller further comprises at least two bearings (52, 43) wherein the bearings on the cutting roller are located in different positions than the bearings on the propulsion roller (figure 2, all of the bearings are in different positions) .
Regarding claim 16, Zolotov in view of Wang teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 9, wherein both Zolotov and Wang teaches the propulsion roller is rotated by rotation of the cutting roller.
Regarding claim 17, Zolotov in view of Wang teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 15, wherein when the cover is in an open position does not cause rotation of the cutting roller by operation of the crank (this limitation is a functional limitation, the cover does not cause rotation of the cutting roller’ in the open position).
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zolotov (US 20140107668) in view of Wang (US 8869690), as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Rosenberg (US 6063094).
Regarding claim 12, Zolotov in view of Wang teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 9, but does not disclose the at least one tooth of the first cutting blade and the at least one tooth of the second cutting blade are configured to by offset from one another by an angle between 10 and 25 degrees. Rosenberg teaches a known blade art-recognized equivalent first and second cutting blade configuration wherein the cutting blades are set at two different angular orientations (C:8, L:40-55) in order to modulate the relative angular orientation in order to determine an incision characteristic of a pattern. Therefore, it would have within the level of one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to the at least one tooth of the first cutting blade and the at least one tooth of the second cutting blade are configured to by offset from one another by an angle, as taught as known by Rosenberg, in order to modulate the relative angular orientation in order to determine an incision characteristic of a pattern, wherein it would have been further obvious to make that angle between 10 to 25 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 11 has not been rejected over the body of prior art because the arguments with respect to claim 11 in applicant’s arguments dated 6/30/2025 have been found persuasive, and there is no teaching ,suggestion, or motivation to produce the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH TIEU DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (9am-4pm EST).
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.
/ANH T DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771