Detailed Action
This office action is for US application number 18/517,651 evaluates the claims as filed on March 2, 2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 2, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections in this office action have been amended to address the amended claims. Examiner asserts that Burgin teaches all the newly-amended limitations and is capable of performing the functions as claimed. Examiner directs Applicant to the rejection below for a more in-depth description of the limitations.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that “the one or more lenses is disposed in the interior hollow cavity between the illumination source and the bayonet with universal blade holder” of claim 1 lines 14-15 is shown in Fig. 1 with lenses 140i between illumination source 135 and the bayonet with universal blade holder 110 (Remarks p. 7), Examiner agrees that Fig. 1 shows lenses 140i between illumination source 135 and blade holder 110; however, there appears to be no structure shown in Fig. 1 that resembles a bayonet consistent with the ordinary meaning of the term and such does not appear to be provided an alternate definition or any description of the intended structure to enable one to ascertain the intended bayonet. Thus, one cannot reasonably conclude that such is shown. Examiner suggests identification of the intended bayonet and interpretation of “bayonet” or amending to render such clear.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that “one or more light pipes integral with the bayonet” in claim 23 is provided in at least Fig. 1 with light pipe 20 integrated with the bayonet and universal blade holder 110 (Remarks p. 8), Examiner agrees that Fig. 1 shows light pipe 20 integrated with blade holder 110; however, there appears to be no structure shown in Fig. 1 that resembles a bayonet consistent with the ordinary meaning of the term and such does not appear to be provided an alternate definition or any description of the intended structure to enable one to ascertain the intended bayonet. Thus, one cannot reasonably conclude that such is shown. Examiner suggests identification of the intended bayonet and interpretation of “bayonet” or amending to render such clear.
With regards to Applicant’s argument with regards to Koenen that (Remarks p. 10-12), Examiner notes that such is moot because the current ground of rejection does not rely on Koenen for any teaching.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the scalpel of claim 1 line 1, the “bayonet attached to an end of the scalpel handle in longitudinal coordination” of claim 1 line 4, the “the one or more lenses is disposed in the interior hollow cavity between the illumination source and the bayonet with universal blade holder” of claim 1 lines 14-15, the “one or more light pipes integral with the bayonet” of claim 23 lines 1-2, the scalpel of claim 26 line 1, the “bayonet attached to an end of the scalpel handle in longitudinal coordination” of claim 26 line 3, the “one or more light pipes integral with the bayonet” of claim 26 line 11, and the “the one or more lenses is disposed in the interior hollow cavity between the illumination source and the bayonet with universal blade holder” of claim 26 lines 15-16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 26 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 11 should read “one or more lenses integrated in
Claim 26 line 10 should read “one or more lenses integrated in .
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 23 be found allowable, claim 26 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 15, 17-20, 23, and 26 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to the scalpel in line 1, the “a bayonet attached to an end of the scalpel handle in longitudinal coordination” in line 4, and the “the one or more lenses is disposed in the interior hollow cavity between the illumination source and the bayonet with universal blade holder” in lines 14-15 which appears to be due to inconsistencies between the specification and drawings and the ordinary meaning of terms that have not been provided alternate definitions in Applicant’s original disclosure. As an initial matter, Applicant has claimed a scalpel, which is ordinarily “a small straight thin-bladed knife used especially in surgery” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scalpel); however, the specification does not appear to specifically disclose that Applicant’s invention is a scalpel, but instead discuses a scalpel handle throughout. Applicant distinguishes in paragraph 12 that the “invention relates to a scalpel handle and bayonet with universal blade holder having one or more integrated lenses and one or more illumination source” but is then silent to a structure of the bayonet and instead indicates in paragraph 14 that, in one embodiment, the one or more light pipes transmit light from the one or more illumination sources “past a scalpel blade attached to the bayonet with universal blade fitting” and that Fig. 1 shows “a perspective view of a scalpel handle 100 and bayonet with universal blade holder 110 and light pipe 120” (¶51) but does not indicate what structure in Fig. 1 is the disclosed and claimed bayonet and a review of Fig. 1 shows the handle 100, universal blade holder 110, and a structure designated as light pipe 120. This is further unclear when one considers that it does not appear that Applicant has acted as their own lexicographer and provided an alternate definition of “bayonet” in the original disclosure; where the ordinary meaning of bayonet is “a steel blade attached at the muzzle end of a shoulder arm (such as a rifle) and used in hand-to-hand combat”(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bayonet) and that paragraph 40 provides that “The scalpel handle and bayonet with universal blade holder may comprise an instrument, device, or medical device. The universal blade fitting attached to the bayonet can accommodate a variety of scalpel blades or other surgical instruments as is known in the art...” Thus, the scope of the claimed “scalpel” and “bayonet” is unclear and does not appear to be consistently supported by the specifications as referring to any particular structure. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “A scalpel handle comprising:” in line 1, “blade holder configured to attach a blade is made of at least in part transparent material” in lines 16-17.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are unclear with regards to the “reusable sterilizable material” in lines 1-2 and where appropriate support can be found for particular components comprising such a material. Further, claim 18 is unclear with regards to the bayonet as detailed above and support for the universal blade holder being comprised of a “reusable sterilizable material” in lines 1-2 and paragraph 43 discloses that the “scalpel handle and bayonet with universal blade holder may comprise a reusable material of construction that can be sterilized following surgery for reuse”. That is, such is unclear as to what the bayonet is and which of the individual components are “reusable sterilizable material”. Examiner is interpreting this broadly and suggests identification of support for an identifiable structure with such material or cancelling claims 17 and 18.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are unclear with regards to the “disposable sterilizable material” in lines 1-2 and where appropriate support can be found for particular components comprising such a material. Further, claim 20 is unclear with regards to the bayonet as detailed above and support for the universal blade holder being comprised of a “disposable sterilizable material” in lines 1-2 and paragraph 43 discloses that the “n one embodiment, the scalpel handle and bayonet with universal blade holder are disposable. In one embodiment, the scalpel handle and bayonet with universal blade holder may comprise a reusable material of construction that can be sterilized following surgery for reuse”, but is silent to a material that is sterilizable and disposable beyond the BRI that any material can be disposed of if a user so desires to do so. Examiner is interpreting this broadly and suggests identification of support for an identifiable structure with such material or cancelling claims 19 and 20.
Claim(s) 23 is/are unclear with regards to “one or more light pipes integral with the bayonet” in lines 1-2 due to the lack of clarity regarding a consistently identifiable scope for “bayonet” as detailed above. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “further comprising one or more light pipes
Claim(s) 26 is/are unclear with regards to the scalpel in line 1, the “a bayonet attached to an end of the scalpel handle in longitudinal coordination” in line 4, the “one or more light pipes integral with the bayonet” in line 11, and the “the one or more lenses is disposed in the interior hollow cavity between the illumination source and the bayonet with universal blade holder” in lines 15-16 which appears to be due to inconsistencies between the specification and drawings and the ordinary meaning of terms that have not been provided alternate definitions in Applicant’s original disclosure. As an initial matter, Applicant has claimed a scalpel, which is ordinarily “a small straight thin-bladed knife used especially in surgery” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scalpel); however, the specification does not appear to specifically disclose that Applicant’s invention is a scalpel, but instead discuses a scalpel handle throughout. Applicant distinguishes in paragraph 12 that the “invention relates to a scalpel handle and bayonet with universal blade holder having one or more integrated lenses and one or more illumination source” but is then silent to a structure of the bayonet and instead indicates in paragraph 14 that, in one embodiment, the one or more light pipes transmit light from the one or more illumination sources “past a scalpel blade attached to the bayonet with universal blade fitting” and that Fig. 1 shows “a perspective view of a scalpel handle 100 and bayonet with universal blade holder 110 and light pipe 120” (¶51) but does not indicate what structure in Fig. 1 is the disclosed and claimed bayonet and a review of Fig. 1 shows the handle 100, universal blade holder 110, and a structure designated as light pipe 120. This is further unclear when one considers that it does not appear that Applicant has acted as their own lexicographer and provided an alternate definition of “bayonet” in the original disclosure; where the ordinary meaning of bayonet is “a steel blade attached at the muzzle end of a shoulder arm (such as a rifle) and used in hand-to-hand combat”(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bayonet) and that paragraph 40 provides that “The scalpel handle and bayonet with universal blade holder may comprise an instrument, device, or medical device. The universal blade fitting attached to the bayonet can accommodate a variety of scalpel blades or other surgical instruments as is known in the art...” Thus, the scope of the claimed “scalpel” and “bayonet” is unclear and does not appear to be consistently supported by the specifications as referring to any particular structure. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “A scalpel handle comprising:” in line 1, “blade holder configured to attach a blade is made of at least in part transparent material” in lines 17-18.
Claim(s) 3-9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for its/their dependence on one or more rejected base claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 15, 17-20, 23, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burgin (US 4,542,741).
As to claim 1, Burgin discloses a scalpel handle (24, Fig. 1) comprising: an outer wall (Fig. 1) defining an interior hollow cavity (32); a blade holder (portion of 24 shown holding 22 in Fig. 1, Fig. 1) capable of attaching a blade (22) attached to an end of the scalpel handle in longitudinal coordination (Fig. 1); an electrical circuit (Fig. 1) disposed in the interior hollow cavity of the scalpel handle (Fig. 1); a power source (44s) disposed in the interior hollow cavity in communication with the electrical circuit (Fig. 1); one or more illumination sources (40) disposed in the interior hollow cavity in operative communication with the electrical circuit (Fig. 1, col. 2 line 28-31); and one or more lenses (portion of 24 defining the left surface of 32 to surface 52 as shown in Fig. 1, Fig. 1) integrated in the scalpel handle (Fig. 1); wherein the one or more lenses is disposed in the interior hollow cavity between the illumination source and the blade holder (Fig. 1), wherein the scalpel handle is made of at least in part transparent material (col. 2 lines 18-20, col. 1 lines 60-61);).
As to claim 3, Burgin discloses that the power source comprises one or more batteries (as defined, col. 2 lines 30-33).
As to claim 4, Burgin discloses that the one or more illumination sources comprises one or more light bulbs (as defined, col. 2 lines 28-31).
As to claim 15, Burgin discloses that the one or more lenses comprise two convex lenses (opposing outer wall portions adjacent 40 as shown in Fig. 1, which have a convex outer surface due to the contour of the handle, Fig. 1) are disposed in the outer wall of the scalpel handle adjacent one of the one or more illumination sources (as defined, Fig. 1).
As to claim 17, Burgin discloses that the scalpel handle comprises a material (Fig. 1) capable of being reuse and sterilized (Fig. 1).
As to claim 18, Burgin discloses that the bayonet and universal blade holder comprises a material (Fig. 1) capable of being reuse and sterilized (Fig. 1).
As to claim 19, Burgin discloses that the scalpel handle comprises a material (Fig. 1) capable of being sterilized and disposed (Fig. 1).
As to claim 20, Burgin discloses that the bayonet and universal blade holder (Fig. 1) comprises a capable of being sterilized and disposed (Fig. 1).
As to claim 23, Burgin discloses one or more light pipes (in as much as Applicant’s lower portion 24 is shown directly connected to 22 and extending to 40 as shown in Fig. 1, Fig. 1, col. 2 lines 23-26) in communication with one of the one or more illumination sources such that light emitted by the one or more illumination sources is transmitted by one or more of the light pipes (Fig. 1, col. 2 lines 18-21).
As to claim 26, Burgin discloses a scalpel handle (24, Fig. 1) comprising: an outer wall (Fig. 1) defining an interior hollow cavity (32); a blade holder (portion of 24 shown holding 22 in Fig. 1, Fig. 1) capable of attaching a blade (22) attached to an end of the scalpel handle in longitudinal coordination (Fig. 1); an electrical circuit (Fig. 1) disposed in the interior hollow cavity of the scalpel handle (Fig. 1); a power source (44s) disposed in the interior hollow cavity in communication with the electrical circuit (Fig. 1); one or more illumination sources (40) disposed in the interior hollow cavity in operative communication with the electrical circuit (Fig. 1, col. 2 line 28-31); one or more lenses (portion of 24 defining the left surface of 32 to surface 52 as shown in Fig. 1, Fig. 1) integrated in the scalpel handle (Fig. 1); and one or more light pipes (in as much as Applicant’s lower portion 24 is shown directly connected to 22 and extending to 40 as shown in Fig. 1, Fig. 1, col. 2 lines 23-26) in communication with one of the one or more illumination sources such that light emitted by the one or more illumination sources is transmitted by one or more of the light pipes (Fig. 1, col. 2 lines 18-21), wherein the one or more lenses is disposed in the interior hollow cavity between the illumination source and the blade holder (Fig. 1), wherein the scalpel handle is made of at least in part transparent material (col. 2 lines 18-20, col. 1 lines 60-61).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgin in view of Vayser (US 2018/0078301).
As to claims 5 and 6, Burgin discloses the invention of claim 4.
Burgin is silent to the one or more light bulbs comprises one or more LED bulbs. As to claim 6, Burgin is silent to the LED bulbs emit blue light having a wavelength of between about 380 nm and 500 nm.
Vayser teaches a similar surgical handle (1004, Figs. 10 and 11, ¶s 82 and 83), the handle comprising: an outer wall (Figs. 10 and 11) defining an interior hollow cavity (Fig. 11); a blade holder (portion of 1004 shown holding 1010 in Figs. 10 and 11, Figs. 10 and 11) capable of attaching a blade (1010, ¶82 discloses a flat planar blade) to an end of the handle in longitudinal coordination (Figs. 10 and 11); an electrical circuit (Fig. 11, ¶83 ) disposed in the interior hollow cavity of the handle (Fig. 11); one or more illumination sources (1110, Figs. 10 and 11, ¶83) disposed in the interior hollow cavity in operative communication with the electrical circuit (Fig. 11, ¶83); and one or more lenses (1006, Figs. 10 and 11, ¶82) integrated in the handle (Figs. 10 and 11), wherein the one or more illumination sources comprises one or more light bulbs (Fig. 11), wherein the one or more light bulbs comprises one or more LED bulbs (¶83). As to claim 6, Vayser teaches that the LED bulbs emit blue light having a wavelength of between about 380 nm and 500 nm (¶s 52 and 105; where ¶52 discloses visible light of 390-700nm wavelength, ¶105 discloses LEDs providing blue light; as evidenced by UCAR NPL blue light has wavelengths of about 450-495 nm).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the light bulb as disclosed by the Burgin to be a blue light from at least one LED as taught by Vayser in order to provide light that is thermally safe, low profile, and directed and shaped for optimal illumination of the surgical target (Vayser ¶3) by any of a number of known techniques (Vayser ¶105) and may vary as function of time, distance from the target region, mode of operation, or type of surgical procedure (Vayser ¶52).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgin in view of Duggal et al. (US 2018/0228483, hereinafter “Duggal”).
As to claims 7-9, Burgin discloses the invention of claim 1.
Burgin is silent to the electrical circuit comprises a PCB. As to claim 8, Burgin is silent to the one or more illumination sources are attached to the PCB. As to claim 9, Burgin is silent to the PCB comprises a flexible PCB.
Duggal teaches a similar surgical handle (700, Figs. 7A-7E and 7G, ¶60) comprising: an outer wall (Figs. 7A-7E and 7G); an electrical circuit (732, 730, 734, Fig. 7C, ¶55); a power source (742, Fig. 7E, ¶56) in communication with the electrical circuit (Fig. 7E, ¶56); one or more illumination sources (760, Fig. 7G, ¶60) in operative communication with the electrical circuit (Fig. 7G); and one or more lenses (765, Fig. 7G, ¶60) integrated in the handle (Fig. 7G, ¶60); wherein the electrical circuit comprises a PCB (as defined, Fig. 7C, ¶55). As to claim 8, Duggal teaches that the one or more illumination sources are attached to the PCB (Fig. 7C, ¶55). As to claim 9, Duggal teaches that the PCB comprises a flexible PCB (Fig. 7C, ¶55).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the electrical circuit as disclosed by Burgin by adding a flexible PCB as taught by Duggal in order to connect or couple the electrical components (Duggal Fig. 7C, ¶55) in a predictable and known manner (Duggal Fig. 7C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY R SIPP whose telephone number is (313)446-6553. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 6-4.
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 or telephone the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong can be reached on (571)272-4705. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/AMY R SIPP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights