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 Amendment
In response to the amendment filed on 3/31/2026, no claims have been cancelled, and claims 1-21 are pending.
Amendments to claims 8-9, 12 and 16 to remedy USC 112(b) issues have been acknowledged and the rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 21 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.
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, 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.
Claims 1-12, 14-15, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson by US 20200214766 A1 Anderson et al. (hereinafter Anderson) in view of US 11006974 Sanders.
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses a tool (900, Fig. 9) for elongating a fibrous length of tissue (abstract, paragraph 8), the tool comprising:
a first group of cutters (first proximal blade 910, Fig. 9), the first group of cutters comprising a plurality of cutters (830, Fig. 9) spaced apart across a width of the tool so as to form an interleaved set of cutting widths and non-cutting widths (as seen in Fig. 9, paragraph 89, the cutting widths correspond to the width of cutters 830, and the non-cutting widths correspond to the gap width between cutters 830);
a second group of cutters (middle blade 910, Fig. 9), the second group of cutters comprising a plurality of cutters (830, Fig. 9) spaced apart across the width of the tool so as to from an interleaved set of cutting widths and non-cutting widths (as seen in Fig. 9, paragraph 89);
wherein the cutters of the first group of cutters are at least partially overlapped with the cutters of the second group of cutters (as seen in Fig. 2, 9, 12a-13b, paragraph 89, the first group of cutters overlaps at least partially with the second group of cutters to create the staggered patterns on tissue).
Anderson is silent on wherein each cutter of the second group of cutters is positioned so as to partially overlap at least one non-cutting width of the first group of cutters.
However, Sanders teaches a device for harvesting a skin graft sheet (abstract, paragraph 5) having a cutting tool (array 200, Fig. 2) comprising a first group of cutters (top row of cutters 210 (Fig. 2) that creates the top row of holes (320, Fig. 3a), paragraph 56-60) and a second group of cutters (second row of cutters 210 (Fig. 2) that creates the second row of holes (320, Fig. 3a), paragraph 56-60), the second group of cutters is positioned so as to partially overlap at least one non-cutting width of the first group of cutters (as seen in Fig. 3a, the holes 320 created in the skin graft 300 partially overlap a non-cutting width (the space between adjacent holes on the same row which correlate to non-cutting widths of the group of cutters) of the first group of cutters, therefore the cutters 210 of the second group of cutters must be offset so as to partially overlap at least one non-cutting width of the first group of cutters in order to produce the hole pattern seen in Fig. 3a).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the cutting array taught by Anderson with the cutting array as taught by Sanders since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art; the teachings of Sanders would be sufficient to provide wherein each cutter of the second group of cutters is positioned so as to partially overlap at least one non-cutting width of the first group of cutters.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Anderson and Sanders teaches limitations claimed in claim 1, and the combination further teaches further comprising:
at least one further group of cutters (Anderson: distal blade 910 as seen in Fig. 9, multiple rows of blades are seen in Fig. 16a-d, paragraph 105) , the further group of cutters comprising a plurality of cutters (Anderson: 830, Fig. 9) spaced apart across the width of the tool so as to form an interleaved set of cutting widths and non-cutting widths (Anderson: as seen in Fig. 9, paragraph 89); and,
wherein for each further group of cutters, each cutter of that group is positioned so as to partially overlap at least one non-cutting width of an adjacent group of cutters (Sanders: as seen in Fig. 2-3a, there are multiple rows of cutters 210 (each row being a further group of cutters) that create further rows of holes 320 in the skin graft 300, and each further row of holes 320 have holes that are offset from the adjacent row of holes to partially overlap a non-cutting width of the adjacent group of cutters, therefore the further group of cutters 210 are positioned so as to partially overlap at least one non-cutting width of an adjacent group of cutters in order to produce the hole pattern seen in Fig. 3a).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Anderson and Sanders teaches limitations claimed in claim 1, and Anderson further discloses wherein each group of cutters comprises a row of cutters (as seen in Fig. 9, 16a-d, blades 910 comprise a row of multiple cutters 830).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Anderson and Sanders teaches limitations as claimed in claim 1, and Anderson further discloses wherein the groups of cutters are spaced apart along the length of the tool (as seen in Fig. 9, 16a-d).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Anderson and Sanders teaches limitations as claimed in claim 1, and Anderson further discloses wherein each group of cutters comprises a regularly spaced set of cutters (as seen in Fig. 9, 15a-b, 16a-d, cutters 830 are spaced apart at regular intervals).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Anderson and Sanders teaches limitations as claimed in claim 1, and Anderson further discloses wherein each group of cutters has the same arrangement of cutters and wherein each group of cutters is offset, in a width direction, from each adjacent group of cutters by a same offset amount (as seen in Fig. 9, 15a-b, 16a-d, each blade 910 has the same staggered arrangement of cutters 830 and wherein each blade 910 are offset in a width direction from each adjacent blade 910 in an equal offset amount, paragraph 13, 89).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Anderson and Sanders teaches limitations as claimed in claim 1, and Anderson further discloses wherein each group of cutters has a combined cutting width, being a sum of all individual cutting widths in the group (as seen in 8a-c, 9, 15a-b, 16c, each blade 910 has cutters 830 having a cutting width and when summed have a combined cutting width; paragraph 67-68, Fig. 2, cut slits in tissue have a length 210 which corresponds to the width of the cutter 830 of blade 910); and a combined non-cutting width, being a sum of all individual non-cutting widths in the group (as seen in 8a-c, 9, 15a-b, 16c, each blade 910 has a gap width between each cutter 830 corresponding to the non-cutting width of the blade 910, and when summed have a combined non-cutting width; paragraph 67-68, Fig. 2, gap lengths in tissue have a gap length 220 which corresponds to the width of the non-cutting width of the blade 910) and,
wherein a ratio of combined cutting width to combined non-cutting width is approximately the same for each group (as seen in Fig. 8a-c, paragraph 67, the gap length 220 can be at least about 1/10 of the micro-slit length 210, therefore the tool disclosed by Anderson is capable of having a ratio of combined cutting width to combined non-cutting width approximately the same for each blade 910).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Anderson and Sanders teaches limitations as claimed in claim 1, and Anderson further discloses wherein each group has at least five cutters (as seen in Fig. 15a-b, 16c, paragraph 104-105, there are multiple cutters 830 on each cutter group).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Anderson and Sanders teaches limitations as claimed in claim 1, and Anderson further discloses wherein the overlap, in a width direction of the tool, between the cutters of one group and any other group is no more than 80% (paragraph 68, Fig. 2, the overlap 240 between neighboring micro-slits in adjacent rows can be between about 1/10 and 8/10 of the length of adjacent micro-slits, therefore the overlap of the cutter with at least one non-cutting width of the first group of cutters is 2/10 and 9/10, which is still within the range of no more than 80%).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Anderson and Sanders teaches limitations as claimed in claim 1, and Anderson further discloses wherein each group of cutters extends across a width of at least 20 mm (as seen in Fig. 15a, 16c, paragraph 9, 15, 58, the length of the micro-slits can be less than about 2 mm, or less than about 1.5 mm, and there twelve or more cutters on each blade 910 as seen in Fig. 15a, 16c, therefore each group of cutter blade 910 extends across a width of at least 20 mm).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Anderson and Sanders teaches limitations as claimed in claim 10, and Anderson further discloses, wherein each group of cutters extends across a common width portion of the tool, the common width portion having a width of at least 20 mm (as seen in Fig. 15a, 16c, paragraph 9, 15, 58, the length of the micro-slits can be less than about 2 mm, or less than about 1.5 mm, and there twelve or more cutters on each blade 910 as seen in Fig. 15a, 16c, therefore each group of cutter blade 910 extends across a common width portion of the tool, the common width being at least 20 mm).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Anderson and Sanders teaches limitations as claimed in claim 1, and Anderson further discloses wherein each cutter (830) has a cutting width of at least 1 mm (paragraph 9, 15, 58, 87, each cutter 830 creates the micro-slits as seen in at least Fig. 1a and 2, and the length of the micro-slits can be less than about 2 mm, or less than about 1.5 mm).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Anderson and Sanders teaches limitations as claimed in claim 1, and Anderson further discloses wherein the tool comprises an applicator (Fig. 16a, paragraph 105) and wherein the groups of cutters are formed on an insert (see annotated Fig. 16a below) which is mountable to the applicator (as seen in Fig. 16a-b, the insert is mountable to the applicator through knobs that are threaded to tighten and clamp the insert and group of cutters to the applicator).
PNG
media_image1.png
291
397
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Anderson and Sanders teaches limitations as claimed in claim 14, and Anderson further discloses wherein the insert is replaceable and/or interchangeable (as seen in Fig. 16a-16b, the knobs are unscrewed to unclamp and release the insert).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Anderson and Sanders teaches limitations as claimed in claim 1, and Anderson further discloses wherein the tool is a medial collateral ligament lengthening tool (paragraph 3: tissue stretching can also be useful for lengthening tendons, re-shaping cartilage, and for expanding other connective tissues; paragraph 8, The exemplary method and apparatus can be applied in situ for releasing local skin tension, to cover damaged or removed regions of tissue using adjacent healthy tissue, and other tissue expansion applications; therefore the tool (900) of Anderson is capable of being a medial collateral ligament lengthening tool in order to improve functionality to the ligament).
Regarding claim 21, Anderson discloses a method of elongating a fibrous length of tissue (abstract, paragraph 8-9, 56) the method comprising:
using a tool (900, Fig. 9) to cut fibres of the fibrous length of tissue (paragraph 89), the tool comprising:
a first group of cutters (first proximal blade 910, Fig. 9), the first group of cutters comprising a plurality of cutters (830, Fig. 9) spaced apart across a width of the tool so as to form an interleaved set of cutting widths and non-cutting widths (as seen in Fig. 9, paragraph 89, the cutting widths correspond to the width of cutters 830, and the non-cutting widths correspond to the gap width between cutters 830); and,
a second group of cutters (middle blade 910, Fig. 9), the second group of cutters comprising a plurality of cutters (830, Fig. 9) spaced apart across the width of the tool so as to from an interleaved set of cutting widths and non-cutting widths (as seen in Fig. 9, paragraph 89);
wherein the cutters of the first group of cutters are at least partially overlapped with the cutters of the second group of cutters (as seen in Fig. 2, 9, 12a-13b, paragraph 89, the first group of cutters overlaps at least partially with the second group of cutters to create the staggered patterns on tissue).
Anderson is silent on wherein each cutter of the second group of cutters is positioned so as to partially overlap at least one non-cutting width of the first group of cutters.
However, Sanders teaches a device for harvesting a skin graft sheet (abstract, paragraph 5) having a cutting tool (array 200, Fig. 2) comprising a first group of cutters (top row of cutters 210 (Fig. 2) that creates the top row of holes (320, Fig. 3a), paragraph 56-60) and a second group of cutters (second row of cutters 210 (Fig. 2) that creates the second row of holes (320, Fig. 3a), paragraph 56-60), the second group of cutters is positioned so as to partially overlap at least one non-cutting width of the first group of cutters (as seen in Fig. 3a, the holes 320 created in the skin graft 300 partially overlap a non-cutting width (the space between adjacent holes on the same row which correlate to non-cutting widths of the group of cutters) of the first group of cutters, therefore the cutters 210 of the second group of cutters must be offset so as to partially overlap at least one non-cutting width of the first group of cutters in order to produce the hole pattern seen in Fig. 3a).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the cutting array taught by Anderson with the cutting array as taught by Sanders since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art; the teachings of Sanders would be sufficient to provide wherein each cutter of the second group of cutters is positioned so as to partially overlap at least one non-cutting width of the first group of cutters.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Sanders as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of US 20050283141 A1 Giovannoli.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Anderson and Sanders teaches limitations as claimed in claim 1.
The combination is silent on wherein each cutter is a cannula.
However, Giovannoli teaches a surgical tool (Fig. 5) with a plurality of cutters (23) wherein each cutter is a cannula (Fig. 5, paragraph 45, each punch 23 is a hollow tube with a lumen 34).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the cutters (830) taught by modified Anderson with Sanders with the cutters (23) as taught by Giovannoli since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art; the cutters (23) taught by Giovannoli would be sufficient to provide wherein each cutter is a cannula.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Sanders as applied to claim 1 and 14, and in further view of US 4644953 A Lahodny et al. (hereinafter Lahodny).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Anderson and Sanders teaches limitations as claimed in claim 14.
The combination is silent on wherein the applicator is a gripping device arranged, in use, to press the cutters into the fibrous length of tissue.
However, Lahodny teaches a surgical device comprising an applicator (Fig. 1) wherein the applicator is a gripping device arranged, in use, to press cutters (15, Fig. 1, 4-8) into the fibrous length of tissue (36, Fig. 1, 4-8) ((col. 1 line 64 – col. 2 line 36, the surgical device comprises jaw members to clamp tissue therebetween and press needles (15) into tissue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modification of Anderson with Sanders with the teachings of Lahodny to have wherein the applicator is a gripping device arranged, in use, to press the cutters into the fibrous length of tissue in order to securely clamp the tissue and perform an operation on the tissue.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Anderson and Sanders teaches limitations as claimed in claim 14.
The combination is silent on wherein the applicator is pliers.
However, Lahodny teaches a surgical device comprising an applicator (Fig. 1) and wherein the applicator is pliers (col. 1 line 64 – col. 2 line 36, as seen in Fig. 1, the surgical device are forceps having clamping jaws to clamp tissue therebetween and press needles (15) into tissue).
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 modification of Anderson with Sanders with the teachings of Lahodny to have wherein the applicator is pliers in order to securely clamp the tissue and perform an operation on the tissue.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Anderson and Sanders teaches limitations as claimed in claim 14.
The combination is silent on wherein the tool further comprises a plate, the plate comprising a hole corresponding positionally to each cutter, and wherein the applicator is arranged to apply the cutters towards and optionally into and/or through the holes after passing through the fibrous length of tissue.
However, Lahodny teaches a surgical device comprising an applicator (Fig. 1) that further comprises a plate (27, Fig. 1, 4-6, 15-16), the plate comprising a hole (28, Fig. 15) corresponding positionally to each cutter (15, Fig. 1, 4-8) (col. 4 line 35-40) and wherein the applicator is arranged to apply the cutters (15) towards and optionally into and/or through the holes (28) after passing through the fibrous length of tissue (36, Fig. 1, 4-8) (as seen in Fig. 4-6, col. 5 line 30-42).
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 modification of Anderson with Sanders with the teachings of Lahodny to have wherein the tool further comprises a plate, the plate comprising a hole corresponding positionally to each cutter, and wherein the applicator is arranged to apply the cutters towards and optionally into and/or through the holes after passing through the fibrous length of tissue, in order to allow the cutters to pass completely through the tissue for a more thorough tissue cutting operation.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Anderson and Sanders teaches limitations as claimed in claim 1.
The combination is silent on wherein the tool comprises an alignment device arranged for placement against the fibrous length of tissue and arranged to align the groups of cutters perpendicular to a length direction of the fibrous length of tissue.
However, Lahodny teaches a surgical device (Fig. 1) having an alignment device (27, Fig. 1, 4-6, 15-16) arranged for placement against the fibrous length of tissue (36, Fig. 1, 4-8) (as seen in Fig. 1, 4-6, 15-16) and arranged to align a groups of cutters (15, Fig. 1, 4-8, col. 4 line 35-40) perpendicular to a length direction of the fibrous length of tissue (based on how a user would align the surgical device towards the tissue, the device of Lahodny is capable of being placed against a fibrous length of tissue at any angle including perpendicular to the length of the fibrous tissue).
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 modification of Anderson with Sanders with the teachings Lahodny to have wherein the tool comprises an alignment device arranged for placement against the fibrous length of tissue and arranged to align the groups of cutters perpendicular to a length direction of the fibrous length of tissue in order to securely clamp the tissue and accurately cut through the tissue.
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 KHOA TAN LE whose telephone number is (703)756-1252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4:30pm.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at 571-272-4696. 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.
/KHOA TAN LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 /MOHAMED G GABR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights