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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-19 have been cancelled and claims 20-24 are pending and examined below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1-19 because No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of "canceled". See MPEP. 714 (c), section 4. Appropriate correction is required.
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 20-24 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.
Claims 20-24 recites “a hemispherical domed shaping portion” (emphasis added) is unclear and confusing.
First, see https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hemisphere that is a half of a sphere (see the hemispherical dome below). Looking at Applicant’s Figure 17A, there is NOT a hemispherical dome since it is not a half of a sphere. Second, the “hemispherical domed shaping portion ” (emphasis added) is confusing because it appears to just claim a portion of the “hemispherical dome”, which is extremity broad because any portion of a dome can meet this limitation. If an art has a portion of hemispherical dome (not a full hemispherical dome), it meets this limitation, right? What is it exactly an actual shape that is being claimed?
PNG
media_image1.png
248
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
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.
(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.
Claims 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Curtis (US 2017/0164807).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, Curtis shows a set of tools configured to form a “hemispherical domed ADM graft” from an ADM graft (Figures 3, 7A-D), the set of tools comprising:
a shaping tool having a “hemispherical domed shaping portion” (12 in Figure 6 or Figure 7B) upwardly extending from an edge providing including an overall given perimeter (see the perimeter edge in Figures 4A-4D),
the “hemispherical domed shaping portion” configured to shape the ADM graft into the “hemispherical domed ADM graft having an overall perimeter with a correspondence to the overall given perimeter” (Figures 4A-4D and Para. 36 “the shape and overall design of the dome portion 12” configured to shape the ADM graft into the “hemispherical domed ADM graft having an overall perimeter with a correspondence to the overall given perimeter) , and
the hemispherical domed shaping portion configured to shape the ADM graft to provide a perimeter edge with a correspondence to the edge of the hemispherical dome shaping portion (as it is written, it is unclear how the perimeter edge of the hemispherical domed ADM graft is a correspondence to the edge of the hemispherical dome shaping portion, therefore, see Figures 7A-7D show the dome shape configured to shape a dome shape of the ADM graft having a perimeter edge is a correspondence to the edge of the hemispherical dome shaping portion. See MPEP 2112.01, under the heading "Product and Apparatus Claims - When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identical to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions are Presumed to be Inherent"); and
a scoring tool (as it is written, it is extremity broad that makes unclear what structures of the scoring tool is, therefore, Figure 6 and Para. 32 “The scrub pads may be made of a suitable scrub material e.g. for removing grease and dirt from as surface… sanding, i.e., for woodworking, and sandpaper discs of various” and Para. 35 “an abrasive scrub pad 22 …the pad 22 is formed of a fibrous material” which can be crashed, scrubbed or scored some materials and meets a constitution of this scoring tool) having a scoring portion (emphasis added) within a scoring edge perimeter (an edge perimeter of the pad 22 in Figures 3 and 6 and Para. 35 recites “the pad 22 should be approximately the same shape and dimension as the base of the tool, e.g., a nominal 3.25 inches” that means some middle portions of the pad 22 within the scoring edge perimeter), and the scoring portion configured to impart a desired mesh pattern into the hemispherical domed shaped ADM graft adjacent the perimeter edge (see Figure 3, the pad 22 can be configured to impart a desired mesh pattern into the hemispherical domed shaped ADM graft adjacent the perimeter edge since properties of the ADM material is NOT positively defined, e.g., a softer ADM material is easily crashed, scrubbed, or scored by the pad 22).
Regarding claim 21, as best understood, Curtis shows that the shaping tool (12) and the scoring tool (22) are integrated in a single device (Figure 6), wherein the hemispherical domed shaping portion extends in a first direction (upwardly direction, Figure 6), wherein the scoring tool extends in a second direction (downward direction, Figure 6), and wherein the first direction and the second direction are opposite to one another so as to form the domed ADM graft with the given overall perimeter and the desired mesh pattern with a single placement of the ADM graft (Figure 6 and see the discussion in claim 20 above).
Regarding claim 22, as best understood, Curtis shows that the shaping tool (12) and the scoring tool (22) are provided in devices separate from one another (Paras. 34-35 discus that the pad 22 is attached the dome portion 12 by a Velcro disk 20).
Regarding claim 23, as best understood, Curtis shows that the scoring edge perimeter is adjacent the edge of hemispherical domed shaping portion (Figures 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 24, as best understood, Curtis shows that the scoring edge perimeter is co- equal with the edge of hemispherical domed shaping portion (Figures 3 and 6).
Response to Arguments
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. There are many art teach top portions of devices or domed handles, for examples, US 2022/0135188; US 20140238199 A1; US 20090311957 A1; US 6887012 B1; US 6223651 B1; D356355S; US 3667519 A.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With regards to the “hemispherical..domed” language, during the interview, discussed this language to distinct art used in the final office action, however, Applicant’s has not provided its support, therefore, the 112b issue above is arisen.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, especially, the ADM is positively claimed in the claimed invention. Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 1/12/2026