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 .
Detailed Action
This is in response to the non-provisional application filed 12/19/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/010512 (Lock et al.)
Regarding claim 1, 3-9 Lock et al. discloses as shown in Figure 19, a medical blade (blade or tip 1914, see paragraph [0066]), comprising: a cutting portion, wherein the cutting portion comprises a symmetrical arcuate portion, wherein the symmetrical arcuate portion comprises a first end (generally indicated as A) of the symmetrical arcuate portion, a second end (generally indicated as B) of the symmetrical arcuate portion, and an arc therebetween, wherein the first end of the symmetrical arcuate portion and the second end of the symmetrical arcuate portion are on an axis, wherein the axis is the same axis, wherein the second end of the symmetrical arcuate portion is distal to the first end of the symmetrical arcuate portion, wherein the symmetrical arcuate portion comprises a width extending on the axis between the first end of the symmetrical arcuate portion and the second end of the symmetrical arcuate portion, wherein the arc comprises a rise extending from the center of the width to the center of the arc, wherein the symmetrical arcuate portion comprises: (i) a convex side (generally indicated as D); (ii) a concave side (generally indicated as C); (iii) a top edge (generally indicated as E); and (iv) a bottom edge (generally indicated as F), wherein the bottom edge comprises a cutting edge, wherein the symmetrical arcuate portion comprises a height extending between the top edge and the bottom edge, wherein the cutting portion is configured to be fixed at the first end of the symmetrical arcuate portion, wherein the medical blade is a surgical blade, wherein the medical blade comprises a shape is selected from the group consisting of: a parabolic shape, a semi-elliptical shape, a semi-circular shape, a semi-ovoid shape, a C-shape, a J-shape, and a question mark shape, wherein the axis of the width extending between the first end of the symmetrical arcuate portion and the second end of the symmetrical arcuate portion is a longitudinal axis, wherein the axis of the width extending between the first end of the symmetrical arcuate portion and the second end of the symmetrical arcuate portion is a perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, wherein the first end of the symmetrical arcuate portion comprises an attachment region, wherein the first end of the body portion comprises an attachment region, where the cutting edge is not both the bottom edge and top edge (the Office interprets the top edge as not the cutting edge if it is not used to cut it is necessarily not a cutting edge).
PNG
media_image1.png
215
302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lock et al. discloses as shown in Figure 19 a body portion (attachment portion 1940, see paragraph [0066]) , wherein the body portion comprises a first end (remote end) and a second end (end attached to arcuate cutting portion), wherein the body portion is linear, extending along a longitudinal axis between the first end of the body portion and the second end of the body portion, wherein the second end of the body portion is distal to the first end of the body portion, wherein the cutting portion is configured to be fixed at the second end of the body portion, wherein the body portion is configured to be fixed at the first end of the body portion.
Regarding claims 9, 10 Lock et al. discloses wherein the attachment region comprises at least one aperture (aperture 1966, see paragraph [0066]), wherein the attachment region is configured for attachment to a handle.
Regarding claim 15, Lock et al. discloses wherein the medical blade is composed of a material selected from the group consisting of: metal, ceramic, titanium, diamond, sapphire, obsidian, combinations of metals, and metal ceramic alloys. See paragraph [0022].
Regarding claim 16, 17 Lock et al. discloses a scalpel, comprising: the medical blade of claim 1; and a handle (housing 1012, se paragraph [0056]), wherein the handle is linear along a longitudinal axis, wherein the handle comprises a first end and a second end, wherein the second end of the handle is fixedly attached to the medical blade at the attachment region, wherein the second end of the handle comprises at least one projection that is configured to fasten in the at least one aperture of the medical blade.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0101512 (Lock et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2002/0052614 (GeBauer)
Regarding claim 11, Lock et al. fails to disclose wherein the width comprises 0.5 mm or greater.
GeBauer, from the same field of endeavor teaches a similar blade with a width comprises 0.5 mm or greater. See paragraph [0031].
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 medical blade disclosed by Lock by substituting the width of the blade disclosed by Lock et al., for the width of the blade disclosed by GeBauer such that the width comprises 0.5 mm or greater because it would only require the simple substitution of one known alternative for another to produce nothing but predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/010512 (Lock et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2016/0066929 (Russo et al.)
Regarding claim 12, Lock et al. fails to disclose wherein the rise comprises 0.5 mm or greater.
Russo et al., from the same field of endeavor teaches a similar blade wherein the rise (height along minor axis) comprises 0.5 mm or greater. See paragraph [0057].
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 medical blade disclosed by Lock by substituting the rise of the blade disclosed by Lock et al., for the rise of the blade disclosed by Russo et al. such that the rise comprises 0.5 mm or greater because it would only require the simple substitution of one known alternative for another to produce nothing but predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/010512 (Lock et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2006/0116707 (Loshakove et al.)
Regarding claim 13, Lock et al. fails to disclose wherein the height comprises 0.1 mm or greater.
Loshakove et al., from the same field of endeavor teaches a similar wherein the height (described as thickness) comprises 0.1 mm or greater. See paragraph [0089].
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 medical blade disclosed by Lock by substituting the height of the blade disclosed by Lock et al., for the height of the blade disclosed by Loshakove et al. such that the height comprises 0.1 mm or greater because it would only require the simple substitution of one known alternative for another to produce nothing but predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/010512 (Lock et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2003/0130676 (Sugimura et al.)
Regarding claim 14, Lock et al. fails to disclose wherein the symmetrical arcuate portion comprises a thickness between the concave side and the convex side, wherein the thickness is 0.01 mm or greater.
Sugimura et al., from the same field of endeavor teaches a similar wherein the blade comprises a thickness of 0.1 mm or greater. See paragraph [0090].
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 medical blade disclosed by Lock by substituting the thickness of the blade disclosed by Lock et al., for the thickness of the blade disclosed by Sugimura et al. such wherein the symmetrical arcuate portion comprises a thickness between the concave side and the convex side, wherein the thickness is 0.01 mm or greater because it would only require the simple substitution of one known alternative for another to produce nothing but predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2002/0111563 (Hall) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/010512 (Lock et al.)
Regarding claims 18, 20 Hall discloses as shown in Figure 1, a method of obtaining a skin sample from a subject, comprising: moving a cutting portion through the surface of skin of a subject to obtain a skin sample, wherein the moving comprises moving the cutting portion in a downward and an upward motion to remove a skin sample from the subject. See paragraph [0031]
Hall fails to disclose a cutting portion of claim 16.
Lock, from the same field of endeavor teaches a similar method where the cutting portion is defined by claim 16. See rejection of claim 16.
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 method disclosed by Hall by substituting the cutting portion disclosed by Hall for the cutting portion taught by Lock because it would only require the simple substitution of one known alterative configuration for another to produce nothing but predictable results.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2002/0111563 (Hall) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/010512 (Lock et al.) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2001/0034534 (Transue)
Regarding claim 19, Hall in view of Lock fail to disclose wherein the moving occurs around the longitudinal axis or around an axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.
Transue, from the same field of endeavor teaches a similar method as shown in Figures 3-5, where the moving occurs around the longitudinal axis or around an axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. See paragraph [0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify method disclosed by Hall in view of Lock by substituting the step of moving disclosed by Hall in view of Lock for the step of moving taught by Transure because it would only require ethe simple substitution of one known alternative for another to produce nothing but predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/19/2029 see pages 5-12 have been considered, but are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-11, 15, 16 The applicant argues Locke fails to disclose a symmetrical arcuate portion because Hall discloses the blade is sickle shaped. In response, the Office respectfully disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize sickle to by a symmetrical shape. See col. 3, lines 57-59 of U.S. Patent Number 4,425,599 (“The symmetrical shape can be that of a substantially straight wedge or, more preferred, that of a curved wedge, i.e. a so-called "sickle-blade" shape”).
Moreover, it clear from Fig. 19 of Locke that a portion (all that the claims require) of blade 1914 is symmetrical about an axis generally indicated as A:
PNG
media_image2.png
260
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, the applicant argues it is distinguishable because it would not be a mere simple substitution to swap the widths disclosed by GeBauer and Locke. The applicant argues the width of GeBauer is a different structure and function that of Locke. In response, the Office respectfully disagrees. GeBauer discloses the claim width of a medical blade is known. The function of the width of the blade of GeBauer is to define the structure of blade, which is the same of function of the blade of Locke and the applicant’s invention.
The applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to equate or transpose GeBauer’s flat body width to the chord width of a sickle-type arcuate blade. In response, the Office respectfully disagrees. Locke and GeBauer are from the same field of endeavor. GeBauer teaches the same structure (width of a blade) for the same purpose (defining a dimension for a blade) and one of ordinary skill in the art would only expect predictable results if one was substituted for another.
Regarding claim 12, again the applicant does not dispute the limitations of the claim are taught by the references. The applicant argues because Russo teaches a closed a closed circular blade it is not relevant to dimensions of blade of semi-circle or sickle shape disclosed by Locke. In response the Office respectfully disagrees. A circle is two semi-circles. The teaching of the height along minor axis of the blade (which the applicant defines as the rise) would clearly be reasonably pertinent to a blade of a semi-circular or sickle shape taught by Locke et al.
Regarding claim 13, the applicant’s remarks have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection Loshakove.
Regarding claim 14, the applicant again admits the art of record teaches the claimed features. The applicant argues Sugimura’s thickness makes it distinguishable from the claims because it pertains to use with corneal epithelium separation. In response, the Office respectfully disagrees. Sugimura is reasonably pertinent to problem of surgical blade thickness because it teaches it is known to make surgical blades of certain thickness and based on the disclosures of Lock and Sugimura one ordinary skill in the art would have every expectation that it would have every expectation that substituting one for another would produce nothing but predictable results given the similarity of structure and function (defining the dimensions of surgical blade). While the Office agrees the performance targets of Lock and Sugimura are different, they are not so different as to suggest substituting one for another would produce anything but a predictable result.
The applicant generally alleges the secondary references teach solving different problems in different contexts. In response, the office respectfully disagrees. They all relate to the same structure (surgical blades) used for the same purpose (cutting tissue).
Regarding the rejection of claim 18, the applicant argues Hall fails to disclose upward movement of the scalpel cutting portion. In response, the Office respectfully disagrees. Hall discloses upward movement of cutting portion (cutting edge 12) to obtaining a skin sample. See Figures 2d, 2e showing downward movement to puncture the skin and upward movement to remove the cutting edge 12.
The applicant argues there is no teaching or suggestion to modify Hall’s vacuum extraction to use a scalpel’s downward and upward motion. In response, the office respectfully disagrees. Hall generally teaches cutting tissue to retrieve a skin sample. Locke teaches a similar cutting portion that would be able to cut tissue in the same manner as the cutting portion disclosed by Hall to produce substantially the same result. It follows that substituting one for another would produce nothing but predictable results.
Regrading claim 19, again the applicant does not dispute the limitations are taught by the reference. The applicant merely argues Transue teaches the claimed step for a different purpose than Hall and Locke. In response, the Office respectfully disagrees. Hall, Lock, Transue, and the applicant’s invention all teach methods of cutting tissue using surgical blades. Transue, teaches it is known to cut tissue using surgical blade using movement that occurs around the longitudinal axis or around an axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. See paragraph [0027]. It follows that 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 method disclosed by Hall and Locke to include the steps of using movement that occurs around the longitudinal axis or around an axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis in order to cut tissue in that direction.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action and Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 10/13/2025 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a) and See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD G LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1965. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9:30 am – 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Jackie Ho at 571-272-4696. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
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.
/RICHARD G LOUIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771