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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is entered in response to Applicant’s amendment and reply of December 19, 2025. Claims 1, 10-19 are amended. Claim 20 is cancelled. Claims 21-22 are newly added. Claims 1-19, 21, 22 are pending. Claims 1-9 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed December 19, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 10-19 under 35 USC 112b, 102 and/or 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in combination with the amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of 35 USC 112b and 102/103.
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 12, 15, 16, 21-22 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 12, it is unclear how one of the variable locating dimensions of the blade "varies in a longitudinal position along the longitudinal axis in response to the blade thickness." That is, how does the one variable locating dimension of a blade vary position? In other words, if an apparatus comprises one locating dimension, how is positioning of the one locating dimension changed or varied within the same blade? The Office recommends clarifying that the locating dimension in each of the plurality of blades is based upon the blade thickness and/or is different in longitudinal position along the longitudinal axis between each blade in the plurality of blades based upon the correlating blade thickness.
Regarding claim 15, it is unclear how the first longitudinal position of the fore aperture of each of the plurality of blades "varies in response to the blade thickness." That is, how is the first longitudinal position of the fore aperture of one of and/or each of the blades moved? In other words, if the claim is referring to each blade or just one of the blades of the plurality of blades, how is positioning of an aperture varied within or along the blade? The Office recommends clarifying that the first longitudinal position of the fore aperture in each of the plurality of blades is based upon the blade thickness and/or is different between each blade in the plurality of blades based upon the correlating blade thickness.
Regarding claim 16, it is unclear how at least one of the first length and second length vary in response to the blade thickness. That is, how is the first length and/or second length of one of and/or each of the blades moved? In other words, if the claim is referring to each blade or just one of the blades of the plurality of blades, how is the first length and/or second length varied within the blade? The Office recommends clarifying that the first length and second length in each of the plurality of blades is based upon the blade thickness and/or is different between each blade in the plurality of blades based upon the correlating blade thickness.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the blade thickness" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate clarification or correction is required.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the receiving opening" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate clarification or correction is required.
Claim 21 recites the phrases “each of the plurality of blades through the blade thickness” and “plurality of blades” in lines 8-9, however, claim 21 previously recites a single “surgical blade” in line 2. Claims 21 appears to be drawn to a single surgical blade and therefore, it is unclear how a plurality of mating apertures can be formed though each of a plurality of blades. It is unclear whether claim 21 is reciting a single surgical blade as identified in lines 1-2 or a plurality of surgical blades as in lines 8-9. The phrase “compatible with a plurality of interchangeable blades of a blade-mounting apparatus for a surgical tool” in lines 1-2 recites an intended use of the surgical blade and therefore does not positively recite a plurality of blades. Appropriate clarification or correction is required.
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.
Claims 10, 13, 14, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Evan et al, US 5,263,972.
Regarding claims 10, 21 and 22, Evans discloses an interchangeable surgical blade system (10, 12, Figs.1- 5A-E, 6-9) comprising a single blade and/or a plurality of blades (12, col. 2, lines 20-35), each of the single and/or plurality of blades having a blade thickness that varies over a range of blade thicknesses among the plurality of blades (col. 2, lines 20-35; blades of a range of thicknesses; col. 9, line 65 to col. 10, line 10), for mating with a compatible receiving opening of a blade attachment assembly of a surgical tool (chuck 11, col. 8, lines 60-67), each of the plurality of blades comprising:
an elongated rectangular mating profile (124, Figs. 3, 4-4A, col. 8, lines 5-55) defining a blade width and a blade thickness (Figs. 3, 4-4A, col. 8, lines 5-55 and col. 10, lines 1-30) extending along a longitudinal axis of each of the plurality of surgical blades; and
an acting end disposed at a first end portion (cutting portion 122, 121, Fig. 3, col. 8, lines 5-10); and
a mounting interface (mounting portion 123, Figs. 5A-E, col. 8, lines 5-30) configured to engage the receiving opening and disposed at a second end portion opposite the first end portion (Figs. 5A-E, col. 8, lines 10-55, and col. 10, lines 1-30), wherein the mounting interface comprises a plurality of mating apertures (132, 133, 134, Figs. 5A-E, col. 8, lines 40-55) formed through the surgical each of the plurality of blades the extending through the blade thickness, wherein at least one locating dimension of the plurality of apertures varies for each of the plurality of blades based on the corresponding blade thickness (locating dimension can be the depth or height of each blade and will vary depending on the range of thicknesses which are different for each blade, col. 10, lines 1-10), wherein the plurality of apertures comprises:
a fore aperture (132) formed at a first longitudinal position comprising a first length and a first width and forming a first receiving perimeter wall (Figs. 5A-E); and
an aft aperture (134) formed at a second longitudinal position comprising a second length and a second width and forming a second receiving perimeter wall (Figs. 5A-E).
Regarding claim 13, Evans discloses the interchangeable surgical blade system according to claim 10, wherein the at least one variable locating dimension of each blade aligns with the one or more mating protrusions of the blade attachment assembly (blade 12 and chuck 11 are aligned as shown in Figs. 5A-E, col. lines 10, lines 20-65; col. 11, lines 1-60) based on a relationship of the one or more mating protrusions to the range of blade thicknesses (col. 10, lines 1-10; different blade thicknesses, col. 12, lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 14, Evans discloses the interchangeable surgical blade system according to claim 10, wherein the second longitudinal position of the aft aperture is fixed over the range of blade thicknesses (col. 8, lines 5-25; thickness of blades 12 can vary however the position of mounting portion 123 with apertures 132, 133, 134 does not change).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11, 17-19 are 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.
Claims 12, 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: The prior art of record Evans, Matthai, and the other references as cited on PTO-892 fails to teach or render obvious wherein the at least one variable locating dimension comprises a plurality of variable locating dimensions, wherein the plurality of variable locating dimensions are defined by at least one of the first longitudinal position, the first length, and the second length of the fore aperture or the aft aperture; wherein the first longitudinal position of the fore aperture of each of the plurality of blades can be different in each of the plurality of blades based on the blade thickness; and/or wherein at least one of the first length and the second length can be different in each blade in the plurality of blades based on the blade thickness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATRINA M STRANSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-3843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5:00 pm 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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at (571)272-4746. 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.
/KATRINA M STRANSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3700
Prosecution Insights