DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 30 March 2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 30 March 2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim 21 claim have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Specifically, claim 21 was amended to recite the concave and convex surface both extend through the medial plane at the transverse plane. Harrel’016, relied on to reject claim 21, does not teach the convex surface extends through the medial plane. Balek’717, also relied on to teach claim 21, does not teach concave surfaces r121, r121 extend through the medial plane. However, upon further search, a new ground of rejection under Hood’570 follows below.
Claim 38 was amended to recite the first distal edge is symmetric about the longitudinal plane. Balek’717 does not teach this feature (see the first distal edge identified on page 17 of the 1/30/2026 Office Action). However, upon further search, a new ground of rejection under Messerly’546 follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21-23, 26, 27 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Hood et al. (US Patent 5,318,570).
Claim 21: Hood’570 discloses an ultrasonic instrument (Figure 16), comprising:
(a) an acoustic waveguide (202 and proximal portion of 204) extending along a longitudinal axis and configured to be placed in acoustic communication with an ultrasonic transducer (column 2, lines 42-46; column 14, line 34); and
(b) an ultrasonic blade (200; Figures 15-18) distally extending from the acoustic waveguide along a centerline (see solid black line in the annotated copy of Figure 17 below), wherein the ultrasonic blade is in acoustic communication with the acoustic waveguide such that the acoustic waveguide is configured to communicate ultrasonic vibrations from the ultrasonic transducer to the ultrasonic blade (Figure 15-18; column 14, lines 20-30), wherein the ultrasonic blade includes:
(i) an arcuate blade body (206) extending along the centerline, the arcuate blade body having an upper blade portion (208) on an upper side of the centerline and a lower blade portion (216) on an opposite, lower side of the centerline,
(ii) a concave surface (208; column 14, lines 35-38; Figure 18) on the upper blade portion, wherein the concave surface is concave in a transverse plane (plane going into the page along line 18-18 in Fig 17; Figure 18 is taken along the transverse plane) and upwardly offset from the longitudinal axis (Figure 17 shows the concave surface 208 extends to the distal end 212 the concave surface is above the longitudinal axis near the distal end of the blade), and
(iii) a convex surface (216) on the lower blade portion (column 15, line 10),
wherein the arcuate blade body distally extends such that a first portion of the centerline is lower than the longitudinal axis and further distally extends from the first portion of the centerline upward across the longitudinal axis to a second portion of the centerline upward from the longitudinal axis (see annotated copy of Figure 17 below),
PNG
media_image1.png
322
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A medial plane extends through each of the longitudinal axis and the centerline (medial plane is parallel with the page in Figure 17; goes into the page along the dotted line in annotated copy of Figure 18 below),
PNG
media_image2.png
140
327
media_image2.png
Greyscale
each of the concave surface and the convex surface are symmetric about the medial plane and extend through the medial plane (see Figure 18).
Claim 22: Hood’570 teaches the first portion of the center line is an intermediate portion of the centerline, wherein the second portion of the centerline is a distal portion of the centerline and where the centerline has a proximal portion (ie centerline in proximal section 204) such that the intermediate portion of the centerline is between the distal and portion and proximal portions of the centerline (see the annotated copy of Figure 17 above).
Claim 23: Hood’570 teaches the proximal portion of the centerline extends along the longitudinal axis (see annotated copy of Figure 17 above).
Claim 26: Hood’570 teaches the waveguide includes a flat (unlabeled flat portion near element 204 in Figures 15, 16, 17) (this flat portion can be used in tuning because it has the claimed structure).
Claim 27: Hood’570 teaches a proximal portion of the convex surface is lower than the longitudinal axis and a distal portion of the convex surface is above the longitudinal axis (see annotated copy of Figure 17 in the rejection to claim 21 above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 24, 25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hood’570, as applied to claim 33, further in view of Jansen et al. (US Patent Publication 2012/0016192)
Claim 24: Hood’570 teaches the limitations of claim 24 including that the distal tip of the blade 212 is above the longitudinal axis (see annotated copy of Figure 17 in the rejection to claim 21 above). Hood’570 does not teach the distal tip is serrated.
Jansen’192 teaches an ultrasonic blade with a tip (872) that can be not serrated (Figure 7) or alternately, can be serrated (862; Figure 8) in order to be appropriate for the mechanical characteristics of the tissue to be removed (paragraph [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time at the invention was made to modify the device taught by Hood’570 with serrations, as taught by Jansen’192, in order to be more efficient at cutting a particular type of tissue.
Claim 25: Jansen’192 teaches a plurality of serrated edges (see multiple zig-zags in Figures 8, 9b or multiple points in Figure 9a).
Claims 38, 39 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Messerly et al. (US Patent Publication 2005/0049546) in view of Beaupre (US Patent Publication 2001/0027325) in view of Nelson et al. (US Patent Publication 2011/0270256).
Claim 38: Messerly’546 teaches an ultrasonic instrument (Figure 7a), comprising:
(a) an acoustic waveguide extending along a longitudinal axis and configured to be placed in acoustic communication with an ultrasonic transducer (proximal portion of 6 in Figure 7a; paragraph [0056], [0002]); and
(b) an ultrasonic blade (6) distally extending from the acoustic waveguide along a centerline, wherein the ultrasonic blade is in acoustic communication with the acoustic waveguide such that the acoustic waveguide is configured to communicate ultrasonic vibrations from the ultrasonic transducer to the ultrasonic blade, wherein the ultrasonic blade (Figure 1, paragraph [0002]) includes:
(i) an arcuate blade body extending along the centerline, the arcuate blade body having an upper blade portion on an upper side of the centerline and a lower blade portion on an opposite, lower side of the centerline (top and bottom of the blade, as shown in Figure 7a),
(ii) a concave surface on the upper blade portion distally extending to a first distal edge (see annotated copy of Figure 7a below) , wherein the concave surface is upwardly offset from the longitudinal axis (Figure 7a), wherein the concave surface is curved along a longitudinal plane extending along the longitudinal axis (equivalent to the “medial plane” as identified in the rejection to claim 21), wherein the first distal edge extends through the longitudinal plane, wherein the first distal edge is symmetric about the longitudinal plane (first distal edge is symmetric about the medial plane – see Figure 7a),
PNG
media_image3.png
205
314
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(iii) a convex surface on the lower blade portion distally extending to a second distal edge (see annotated copy Figure 7a above), and
(v) a concave profile, wherein the upper blade portion is concave along a transverse plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (transverse plane is equivalent to the transverse plane identified in the rejection to claim 21 above; Figure 7a shows the upper blade is concave along this transverse plane due to curved channel).
Messerly’546 does not teach a serrated distal edge.
Beaupre’325 teaches a similar ultrasonic cutting blade (Figure 2) and states that various features – including serrated blade edges – can be provided to facilitate desired functions of an ultrasonic cutter (paragraph [0063]).
Similarly, Nelson’256 teaches a reciprocating cutting blade (Figure 15a, 15b) for cutting bone. The blade has a concave and convex surface (Figure 15b) which each end in an edge. The distal surface between the edges is serrated (Figure 15b) in order to aid in cutting joints (paragraph [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the invention was made to modify the device taught by Messerly’546 by providing the first surface (and therefore, the second distal edge) with serrations, taught by Beaupre’325 and Nelson’256, in order to facilitate desired functions of the cutter as stated.
Claim 39: Messerly’546 teaches there is a first surface extending between the first and second distal edges (Figure 7a).
Claims 40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Messerly’546 in view of Beaupre’325 in view of Nelson’256, as applied to claim 39, further in view of Houser et al. (US Patent 6,423,082).
Claim 40: Messerly’546, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 40 except that the first surface extends upward away from the longitudinal axis in a distal direction.
Like Messerly’546, Houser’082 teaches an ultrasonic blade having a top concave surface (30) extending to a first distal edge (34) and a lower convex surface (32) extending to a second distal edge (edge in box in annotated copy of Figure 5) such that a first surface extends between the first distal edge and the second distal edge (see annotated copy of Figure 5 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
270
306
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Houser’082 further teaches the first surface extends upward away from the longitudinal axis in a distal direction. This creates a sharp point for directing the cutting operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the at the time the invention was made to modify the device of Messerly’546, such that the first surface extends upward away from the longitudinal axis in a distal direction, to create a sharp point for directing the cutting operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-35 and 37 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.
Conclusion
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 LINDSEY BACHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 9:30 am-5 pm and alternating Thursdays.
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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at 571-272-7134. 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.
Lindsey Bachman
/L.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3771 12 June 2026
/ELIZABETH HOUSTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights