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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/29/2025 pertaining to the amended limitations of “wherein the sacrificial diameter is smaller than the preserved diameter” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
While Deister does not expressly disclose “wherein the sacrificial diameter is smaller than the preserved diameter”, Deister shows in Fig. 1D wherein one side’s diameter is clearly larger than the opposing side’s diameter while being silent in regards to any expressly-recited dimensions. The examiner contends that, as cited in the rejection below, that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sacrificial side of the head portion of Deister to have a side diameter (diameter shown in Fig. 1D) that is less than that of the preserved side since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Deister et al. would not operate differently with the claimed relative diameters and since one side of the head portion is clearly shown have a larger diameter than the other (see Fig. 1D), the device would function appropriately having the claimed relative diameters. Further, applicant places no criticality on the relative diameters claimed, providing no express disclosure within the specification that a “sacrificial side” comprises a smaller diameter than a “preserved side”, instead appearing to rely on the dimensions shown within Fig. 2. The only instance of a diameter being mentioned within the specification is in Para. [0029] which does not pertain to relative diameters of the sacrificial side or preserved side. As such, the relative dimensions appear to be merely a design choice that serves no specific function or purpose.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 9/29/2025, with respect to the 112(b) rejection of claim 12 for lacking proper antecedent basis for the limitation “wherein the side” have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of Applicant’s arguments to specify a particular side having proper antecedent basis (i.e., the preserved side). Therefore, 112(b) the rejection has been withdrawn.
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 23 is 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.
Claim 23 recites, “the backstop”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claimed as no “backstop” has been previously defined in claim 11 (from which claim 23 depends). For the purposes of examination, claim 23 in interpreted to depend from claim 22 which provides proper antecedent support for this term.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 9-10, 13-16 and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deister (US 2018/0221043 A1) (previously of record).
Regarding claim 1, Deister discloses:
A nerve cutter (see Fig. 1A, see also Para. [0006]) comprising:
a head (head portion 200, see Fig. 1A) having an upper portion (upper jaw 400, see Fig. 1A) and a separate lower portion (lower jaw 300, see Fig. 1A), the upper portion defining a cutting slot (slot 600, see Para. [0068]-[0069] and Fig. 1D) between a preserved side (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1D below denoting a “preserved side” of jaw 400) and a sacrificial side (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1D below denoting a “sacrificial side” of jaw 400), the head configured to hold a nerve in tension while circumferentially constraining a portion of the nerve on the preserved side (apertures (500) receive a nerve therein (see Para. [0051]);
wherein the sacrificial side comprises a sacrificial diameter (diameter shown in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1D below) and the preserved side comprises a preserved diameter (diameter shown in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1D below);
nerve tissue within apertures can be supported along the length of the apertures (see Para. [0071]); thus the nerve tissue can be held in tension within the apertures while constraining the nerve); and
a body (handle portions 100, see Fig. 1A) connected to the upper portion of the head and the lower portion of the head (see Para. [0041]-[0043], see also Fig. 1A), the body forming a hinge (at joint member 155, see Para. [0044]-[0045] and Fig. 1A) to facilitate holding the nerve in tension by the upper portion and the lower portion (as the two handles are squeezed together about joint (155), the motion brings the upper jaw and lower jaw into contact (see Para. [0044]); the upper and lower jaws are configured to then allow for a nerve to be held in tension as previously mentioned via Para. [0051] and [0071] wherein the nerve is held in tension within apertures of the jaws).
However, while Deister appears to show that the side diameter of the sacrificial side in Fig. 1D (see below) is smaller than the side diameter of the preserved side in Fig. 1D (see below), Deister does not expressly disclose such a limitation.
Since Deister does not provide an express teaching as to the diameters of the “preserved side” and “sacrificial side” components shown in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1D below, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sacrificial side of the head portion of Deister to have a side diameter (diameter shown in Fig. 1D) that is less than that of the preserved side since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Deister et al. would not operate differently with the claimed relative diameters and since one side of the head portion is clearly shown have a larger diameter than the other (see Fig. 1D), the device would function appropriately having the claimed relative diameters. Further, applicant places no criticality on the relative diameters claimed, providing no express disclosure within the specification that a “sacrificial side” comprises a smaller diameter than a “preserved side”, instead appearing to rely on the dimensions shown within Fig. 2. The only instance of a diameter being mentioned within the specification is in Para. [0029] which does not pertain to relative diameters of the sacrificial side or preserved side. As such, the relative dimensions appear to be merely a design choice that serves no specific function or purpose.
PNG
media_image1.png
435
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1D
Regarding claim 2, Deister discloses the invention of claim 1, Deister further discloses a blade capable of fitting into the cutting slot (see Para. [0068] mentioning wherein a blade (15) is configured to insert through slot 600 between the two jaws to sever a nerve tissue).
Regarding claim 3, Deister discloses the invention of claim 2, Deister further discloses wherein the blade comprises a scalpel blade (see Para. [0068]).
Regarding claim 6, Deister discloses the invention of claim 1, Deister further discloses a plurality of guides configured to measure a plurality of sized nerves (head portion has a plurality of apertures than can be used to measure the diameter of a nerve, see Fig. 1A and Para. [0066]).
Regarding claim 7, Deister discloses the invention of claim 1, Deister further discloses a first guide (largest, most proximal aperture of the head portion, see Fig. 1A) and a second guide (second largest, second most proximal aperture of the head portion, see Fig. 1A), wherein the first guide is configured to measure a first size of a nerve and the second guide is configured to measure a second size of a nerve (see Para. [0066]), wherein the first size is greater than the second size (see Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 9, Deister discloses:
A nerve cutter (see Fig. 1A, see also Para. [0006]) comprising:
a head (head portion 200, see Fig. 1A) configured to separate a preserved side of a nerve from a portion of the nerve being cut (first and second portion of a nerve are separated by a blade within slot 600, see Fig. 1D, and Para. [0068]);
wherein the head comprises a sacrificial side (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1D below designating a “preserved side”), a preserved side (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1D below designating a “preserved side”), a cutting slot (slot 600, see Fig. 1D, see also Para. [0068]) configured to accommodate a scalpel blade (see Para. [0068] mentioning wherein a blade 15 is accommodated therein); and
wherein the cutting slot permits the scalpel blade to remain approximately square (slicing slot provides sufficient space for a cutting instrument to pass through, see Para. [0071]); and
wherein the sacrificial side comprises a sacrificial diameter (diameter shown in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1D below) and the preserved side comprises a preserved diameter (diameter shown in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1D below).
However, while Deister appears to show that the side diameter of the sacrificial side in Fig. 1D (see below) is smaller than the side diameter of the preserved side in Fig. 1D (see below), Deister does not expressly disclose such a limitation.
Since Deister does not provide an express teaching as to the diameters of the “preserved side” and “sacrificial side” components shown in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1D below, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sacrificial side of the head portion of Deister to have a side diameter (diameter shown in Fig. 1D) that is less than that of the preserved side since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Deister et al. would not operate differently with the claimed relative diameters and since one side of the head portion is clearly shown have a larger diameter than the other (see Fig. 1D), the device would function appropriately having the claimed relative diameters. Further, applicant places no criticality on the relative diameters claimed, providing no express disclosure within the specification that a “sacrificial side” comprises a smaller diameter than a “preserved side”, instead appearing to rely on the dimensions shown within Fig. 2. The only instance of a diameter being mentioned within the specification is in Para. [0029] which does not pertain to relative diameters of the sacrificial side or preserved side. As such, the relative dimensions appear to be merely a design choice that serves no specific function or purpose.
PNG
media_image1.png
435
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1D
Regarding claim 10, Deister discloses the invention of claim 9, Deister further discloses wherein the preserved side is configured to prevent and/or inhibit the nerve from moving radially to its axis while being cut (nerve tissue within the apertures and between the sacrificial side and preserved side is support along the length of the apertures and between the sacrificial and preserved sides (see Para. [0071]); the aperture(s) between the two designated sides are fully capable of being used to prevent and/or inhibit the nerve from moving when disposed therein – the limitations of “configured to prevent and/or inhibit the nerve from moving…” are interpreted as functional language and therefore the device of Deister, comprising all claimed structural limitations, is understood to be capable of performing the recited function, see MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 13, Deister discloses the invention of claim 9, Deister further discloses a plurality of guides configured to measure a plurality of sized nerves (head portion has a plurality of apertures than can be used to measure the diameter of a nerve, see Fig. 1A and Para. [0066]).
Regarding claim 14, Deister discloses:
A nerve cutter (see Fig. 1A, see also Para. [0006]) comprising:
a head (head portion 200, see Fig. 1A) having an upper portion (upper jaw 400, see Fig. 1A) and a lower portion (lower jaw 300, see Fig. 1A) that meet at a back stop (intended edges 510, see Fig. 1F), the upper portion defining a cutting slot (slot 600, see Para. [0068]-[0069] and Fig. 1D) between a preserved side (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1D below denoting a “preserved side” of jaw 400) and a sacrificial side (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1D below denoting a “sacrificial side” of jaw 400);
wherein the head is configured to hold a nerve in tension while circumferentially constraining a portion of the nerve on the preserved side (apertures (500) receive a nerve therein (see Para. [0051]); nerve tissue within apertures can be supported along the length of the apertures (see Para. [0071]); thus the nerve tissue can be held in tension within the apertures while constraining the nerve) and the back stop configured to laterally constrain the nerve (intended edges can inhibit tissue within the aperture from being pinched when the interstitial faces come together, see Para. [0064]);
wherein the sacrificial side comprises a sacrificial diameter (diameter shown in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1D below) and the preserved side comprises a preserved diameter (diameter shown in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1D below).
a body (handle portions 100, see Fig. 1A) connected to the upper portion and the lower portion of the head (see Para. [0041]-[0043], see also Fig. 1A), the body forming a hinge (at joint member 155, see Para. [0044]-[0045] and Fig. 1A) to facilitate holding the nerve in tension by the upper portion and the lower portion (as the two handles are squeezed together about joint (155), the motion brings the upper jaw and lower jaw into contact (see Para. [0044]); the upper and lower jaws are configured to then allow for a nerve to be held in tension as previously mentioned via Para. [0051] and [0071] wherein the nerve is held in tension within apertures of the jaws).
However, while Deister appears to show that the side diameter of the sacrificial side in Fig. 1D (see below) is smaller than the side diameter of the preserved side in Fig. 1D (see below), Deister does not expressly disclose such a limitation.
Since Deister does not provide an express teaching as to the diameters of the “preserved side” and “sacrificial side” components shown in Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1D below, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sacrificial side of the head portion of Deister to have a side diameter (diameter shown in Fig. 1D) that is less than that of the preserved side since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Deister et al. would not operate differently with the claimed relative diameters and since one side of the head portion is clearly shown have a larger diameter than the other (see Fig. 1D), the device would function appropriately having the claimed relative diameters. Further, applicant places no criticality on the relative diameters claimed, providing no express disclosure within the specification that a “sacrificial side” comprises a smaller diameter than a “preserved side”, instead appearing to rely on the dimensions shown within Fig. 2. The only instance of a diameter being mentioned within the specification is in Para. [0029] which does not pertain to relative diameters of the sacrificial side or preserved side. As such, the relative dimensions appear to be merely a design choice that serves no specific function or purpose.
PNG
media_image1.png
435
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 1D
Regarding claim 15, Deister discloses the invention of claim 14, Deister further discloses wherein the cutting slot is sized to operatively accept a blade of between 0.15 mm to 0.75 mm (see Para. [0069] mentioning wherein the width of the slicing slot is between 0.015 inches and 0.025 inches and is configured to receive a blade of corresponding dimensions therein, see Para. [0071]).
Regarding claim 16, Deister discloses the invention of claim 14, Deister further discloses wherein the upper portion and lower portion of the head join at a hinge (the upper and lower jaws join at a hinge defined by joint member 155, see Fig. 1A and Para. [0044]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 18, Deister discloses the invention of claim 14, Deister further discloses wherein the upper portion comprises an upper nerve interface (notches 460 in the upper jaw form apertures 500 for receiving a nerve therein, see Fig. 3A and Para. [0058]).
Regarding claim 19, Deister discloses the invention of claim 18, Deister further discloses wherein the lower portion comprises a lower nerve interface (notches 360 in the lower jaw form apertures 500 for receiving a nerve therein, see Fig. 3A and Para. [0058]).
Regarding claim 20, Deister discloses the invention of claim 14, Deister further discloses a first guide of a size configured to engage a nerve of a first size (largest, proximal-most aperture 500, see Fig. 1A, is configured to receive and measure the diameter of a nerve, see Para. [0066]).
Regarding claim 21, Deister discloses the invention of claim 20, Deister further discloses a second guide (second proximal-most aperture 500, see Fig. 1A) of a size configured to engage a nerve of a second size (aperture are is configured to receive and measure the diameter of a nerve, see Para. [0066]), wherein the first size is larger than the second size (see Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 22, Deister discloses the invention of claim 1, Deister further discloses wherein the upper portion comprises a backstop (intended edges 510, see Fig. 1F) configured to laterally constrain the nerve to be cut (intended edges can inhibit tissue within the aperture from being pinched when the interstitial faces come together, see Para. [0064]).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deister (US 2018/0221043 A1) (previously of record) in view of Steiner (US 2008/0177297 A1)(previously of record).
Regarding claim 4, Deister discloses all of the limitations of the invention of claim 1.
However, Deister does not expressly disclose wherein the sacrificial side comprises a rough finish with additional material
In the same field of endeavor, namely surgical forceps for grasping tissue, Steiner teaches wherein a surgical forceps (see Fig. 1) comprises a pair of jaws (see Fig. 1), wherein the interior surface of the jaws may comprise a rough finish (see Para. [0048] mentioning wherein the interior surface of the jaws comprise a plurality of teeth which would improve gripping abilities of the jaws; the teeth constituting additional material that is added onto an otherwise flat jaw face as shown in Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interior surface of the pair of jaws of Deister to comprise a plurality of teeth along the surfaces thereof as disclosed and taught to be known in the art by Steiner to, in this case, improve the gripping abilities of the jaws.
Regarding claim 5, Deister discloses all of the limitations of the invention of claim 1.
However, Deister does not expressly disclose wherein the sacrificial side comprises a surface having an anti-slip surface material.
In the same field of endeavor, namely surgical forceps for grasping tissue, Steiner teaches wherein a surgical forceps (see Fig. 1) comprises a pair of jaws (see Fig. 1), wherein the interior surface of the jaws may comprise a rough, anti-slip material (see Para. [0048] mentioning wherein the interior surface of the jaws comprise a plurality of teeth which would improve gripping abilities of the jaws).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interior surface of the pair of jaws of Deister to comprise a plurality of teeth along the surfaces thereof as disclosed and taught to be known in the art by Steiner to, in this case, improve the gripping abilities of the jaws.
Regarding claim 11, Deister discloses all of the limitations of the invention of claim 10.
However, Deister does not disclose wherein the sacrificial side comprises a rough finish with additional material.
In the same field of endeavor, namely surgical forceps for grasping tissue, Steiner teaches wherein a surgical forceps (see Fig. 1) comprises a pair of jaws (see Fig. 1), wherein the interior surface of the jaws may comprise a rough finish (see Para. [0048] mentioning wherein the interior surface of the jaws comprise a plurality of teeth which would improve gripping abilities of the jaws; the teeth constituting additional material that is added onto an otherwise flat jaw face as shown in Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interior surface of the pair of jaws of Deister to comprise a plurality of teeth along the surfaces thereof as disclosed and taught to be known in the art by Steiner to, in this case, improve the gripping abilities of the jaws.
Regarding claim 12, Deister discloses all of the limitations of the invention of claim 10.
However, Deister does not expressly disclose wherein the side comprises a surface having an anti-slip surface material.
In the same field of endeavor, namely surgical forceps for grasping tissue, Steiner teaches wherein a surgical forceps (see Fig. 1) comprises a pair of jaws (see Fig. 1), wherein the interior surface of the jaws may comprise a rough, anti-slip material (see Para. [0048] mentioning wherein the interior surface of the jaws comprise a plurality of teeth which would improve gripping abilities of the jaws).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interior surface of the pair of jaws of Deister to comprise a plurality of teeth along the surfaces thereof as disclosed and taught to be known in the art by Steiner to, in this case, improve the gripping abilities of the jaws.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deister (US 2018/0221043 A1)(previously of record) in view of Nilsson (US 2023/0346411 A1)(previously of record), considered prior art via a provisional patent application filed 4 April, 2022.
Regarding claim 8, Deister discloses all of the limitations of the invention of claim 1.
However, Deister does not expressly disclose wherein the hinge is monolithically formed with the body.
In the same field of endeavor, namely surgical forceps devices for grasping tissue, Nilsson teaches wherein a forceps (see Fig. 19) comprises a hinge (520, see Fig. 19) that is monolithically formed with a first and second grasping arms (see Fig. 19 and Para. [0127]) which allows the hinge portion to remain elastically bendable and pivotable while being capable of carrying compression (see Para. [0127]) in addition to providing for improved user control to the head.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the pivot hinge of Deister to comprise an integrally-formed, monolithic attachment component between the pair of jaw members as taught and suggested by Nilsson to, in this case, provide an elastically bendable and pivotable hinge mechanism that is capable of carrying compression (see Nillson Para. [0127]).
Regarding claim 17, Deister discloses all of the limitations of the invention of claim 16.
However, Deister does not expressly disclose wherein the hinge is monolithically formed with the upper portion and lower portion of the head.
In the same field of endeavor, namely surgical forceps devices for grasping tissue, Nilsson teaches wherein a forceps (see Fig. 19) comprises a hinge (520, see Fig. 19) that is monolithically formed with a first and second grasping arms (see Fig. 19 and Para. [0127]) which allows the hinge portion to remain elastically bendable and pivotable while being capable of carrying compression (see Para. [0127]) in addition to providing for improved user control to the head.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the pivot hinge of Deister to comprise an integrally-formed, monolithic attachment component between the pair of jaw members as taught and suggested by Nilsson to, in this case, provide an elastically bendable and pivotable hinge mechanism that is capable of carrying compression (see Nillson Para. [0127]).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deister (US 2018/0221043 A1) (previously of record) in view of Porat (US 2014/0058425 A1).
Regarding claim 23 (see 112b rejection above), Deister discloses the invention of claim 21, Deister.
However, Deister does not expressly disclose wherein the lower portion comprises a well that corresponds with the backstop such that when the upper portion and the lower portion are pushed toward one another, the backstop fits into the well allowing the upper portion and the lower portion to be flush against one another.
In the same field of endeavor, namely surgical forceps devices, Porat teaches wherein a forceps (see Fig. 1) comprises a radial-inwardly extending protrusion extending from one jaw face (160, see Fig. 1) that mates with a corresponding depression disposed within the opposing jaw face (160’, see Fig. 1) so as to provide a locking/latching means to prevent the jaws from separating once closed (see Para. [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the mating indented edges of Deister to have at least one of the opposing indented edges be in the form of a concave depression configured to receive the indented edge of the opposing jaw as taught and suggested by Porat to, in this case, provide a locking/latching system to prevent the jaws from inadvertently opening once closed (see Porat Para. [0059]). The resulting combination would retain the ability to create a delineation between adjacent apertures while increasing the retention ability of the jaws to grasp onto a captured nerve tissue due to the latching abilities of the mating connection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure. See the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, US 2025/0204982 A1 to Shelton, US 20220000541 A1 to Krastins, US 20200078085 A1 to Yates, US 20150157350 A1 to Graham and US 20100114138 A1 to Graham all disclose surgical forceps capable of cutting and/or severing a nerve tissue comprising a pair of jaws joined together at an actuatable hinge joint integrally formed therewith.
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 MITCHELL B HOAG whose telephone number is (571)272-0983. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
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 5712724695. 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.
/M.B.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/DARWIN P EREZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights