CTFR 18/727,770 CTFR 87508 DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to amendments received on 5/18/2026. Claims 1-20 were previously rejected. Claims 1, 4-5, 8-13 have been amended and claim 14 canceled. A complete action on the merits of claims 1-13 and 15-20 follows below. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 )as being anticipated by Idemoto (US Patent No. 5,188,102 ) . Regarding Claim 1, Idemoto teaches an ultrasonic blade configured for use with an ultrasonic surgical instrument (ultrasonic horn used in a surgical operation), the ultrasonic blade comprising: a body portion defining a longitudinal axis therethrough (Figs. 3-7B) and having: a top surface configured to oppose a jaw member of the ultrasonic surgical instrument (although a jaw member is now shown, the top surface marked 12 in Figs. 3-4 is configured to oppose a jaw member of the ultrasonic instrument); a bottom surface (see the annotated drawing below showing the bottom surface comprising a plurality of recesses 14 in Figs. 3-4); a first side surface and a second side surface (see the annotated drawing below); and a distal end having a distal face (the most distal tip of the device marked 123); wherein a first concave notch (one of recesses 14) and a second concave notch (another recess 14) are defined in the body portion to form a ridge extending at least longitudinally along a portion of the bottom surface (either the middle section between two recesses 14 is here interpreted to be a ridge or alternatively the distal extension marked on the drawing below), with at least a portion of the ridge configured to contact tissue for treatment (plurality of recesses 14 are provided on the cutting portion 121 configured to contact tissue for treatment). PNG media_image1.png 615 561 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 2, Idemoto teaches wherein the first concave notch (one of the recesses 14 in Figs. 3-4) is defined at an intersection of the first side surface and the bottom surface, and wherein the second concave notch (another of the recesses 14) is defined at an intersection of the second side surface and the bottom surface. PNG media_image2.png 463 658 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 3, Idemoto teaches wherein the first concave notch (one of the recesses 14 in Figs. 3-4) is defined at an intersection of the distal face, the first side surface, and the bottom surface (drawing a line through the distal face, one of the side surfaces and the bottom surface would pass through one of the recesses 14), and wherein the second concave notch (another of the recesses 14) is defined at an intersection of the distal face, the second side surface, and the bottom surface (drawing a line through the distal face, one of the side surfaces and the bottom surface would pass through one of the recesses 14). PNG media_image3.png 465 655 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 4, Idemoto teaches wherein the ridge extends to the distal end of the body portion (see Figs. 3-4 and the annotated drawing above). Regarding Claim 5, Idemoto teaches wherein the ridge is proximally spaced from the distal end of the body portion (at least one of the protrusions between recesses 14 is here interpreted to be the ridge that is proximally spaced from the distal end of the body as seen in Figs. 3-4). Regarding Claim 6, Idemoto teaches wherein the first and second concave notches 14 are symmetric with one another and wherein the ridge is centered relative to the first and second side surfaces of the body portion (Figs. 3-4). Regarding Claim 7, Idemoto teaches wherein the ridge is exposed to define a monopolar electrode or coated with an electrically conductive material to define a monopolar electrode (please note that since no power generator has been claimed and/or any energy or treatment to tissue, examiner takes the position that given the broadest reasonable interpretation since the blade is made of a conductive material “The material of the horn is preferably titanium alloy, or stainless alloy, or a composition of titanium alloy and stainless alloy” Col. 3, ll. 25-27 that it is interpreted to be an electrode and thus defining a monopolar electrode). Regarding Claim 8, Idemoto teaches an ultrasonic blade configured for use with an ultrasonic surgical instrument (ultrasonic horn used in a surgical operation), the ultrasonic blade comprising: a body portion defining a longitudinal axis therethrough (Figs. 3-7B) and having: a top surface configured to oppose a jaw member of the ultrasonic surgical instrument (although a jaw member is now shown, the top surface marked 12 in Figs. 3-4 is configured to oppose a jaw member of the ultrasonic instrument); a bottom surface (the bottom surface comprising a plurality of recesses 14 in Figs. 3-4); a first side surface and a second side surface (see the annotated drawing above); and a distal end having a distal face (the very distal surface, marked 123 in Fig. 3); the bottom surface includes at least one protrusion defining a narrow bottom surface extending in at least longitudinally along a portion of the bottom surface (the plurality of recesses 14 create an intermediate protrusion section therebetween as seen in Figs. 3-4); wherein at least a portion of the narrow bottom surface of the at least one protrusion is configured to contact tissue for treatment (plurality of recesses 14 are provided on the cutting portion 121 configured to contact tissue for treatment). Regarding Claim 9, Idemoto teaches wherein the at least one protrusion includes a plurality of protrusions spaced apart along the bottom surface (the plurality of recesses 14 create protrusions there between as seen in Figs. 3-4). Regarding Claim 10, Idemoto teaches wherein the at least one protrusion includes a first relatively broad side surface, a second relatively broad side surface, and a relatively the narrow bottom surface (see the annotated drawing below). PNG media_image4.png 462 647 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 339 472 media_image5.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 11, Idemoto teaches wherein the narrow bottom surface is exposed to define a monopolar electrode or coated with an electrically conductive material to define a monopolar electrode (please note that since no power generator has been claimed and/or any energy or treatment to tissue, examiner takes the position that given the broadest reasonable interpretation since the blade is made of a conductive material “The material of the horn is preferably titanium alloy, or stainless alloy, or a composition of titanium alloy and stainless alloy” Col. 3, ll. 25-27 that it is interpreted to be an electrode and thus defining a monopolar electrode). Regarding Claim 12, Idemoto teaches wherein the at least one protrusion is centered relative to the first and second side surfaces of the body portion (Figs. 3-4) . 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Balek (US Pub. No. 2013/0116717 ) . Regarding Claim 1, Balek teaches an ultrasonic blade configured for use with an ultrasonic surgical instrument (Figs. 1 and 10-12), the ultrasonic blade comprising: a body portion defining a longitudinal axis therethrough (Figs. 10-12) and having: a top surface 1230 (Fig. 12) configured to oppose a jaw member of the ultrasonic surgical instrument (although a jaw member is now shown, the top surface marked 1230 in Fig. 12 is configured to oppose a jaw member of the ultrasonic instrument); a bottom surface 1240 (Fig. 12); a first side surface and a second side surface (see the annotated drawing below); and a distal end having a distal face (the most distal tip of the device marked 1020(Fig. 10); wherein a first concave notch and a second concave notch (see the annotated drawing below) are defined in the body portion to form a ridge extending at least longitudinally along a portion of the bottom surface (central bottom ridge 1240 [0064] seen in Fig. 10), with at least a portion of the ridge configured to contact tissue for treatment (the blade and therefore the top and bottom ridge surfaces are configured to contact tissue for treatment). PNG media_image6.png 449 553 media_image6.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 2, Balek teaches wherein the first concave notch is defined at an intersection of the first side surface and the bottom surface, and wherein the second concave notch is defined at an intersection of the second side surface and the bottom surface (Fig. 12). Regarding Claim 3, Balek teaches wherein the first concave notch is defined at an intersection of the distal face, the first side surface, and the bottom surface, and wherein the second concave notch is defined at an intersection of the distal face, the second side surface, and the bottom surface (Fig. 12). Regarding Claim 4, Balek teaches wherein the ridge extends to the distal end of the body portion (Fig. 10 shows the central ridge section 1240 extending distally to the distal end of the body). Regarding Claim 5, Balek teaches wherein the ridge is proximally spaced from the distal end of the body portion (for the purpose of this claim, “a distal end” is interpreted to be the most distal end where Fig. 10 shows the ridge section spaced proximally from the most distal end of the blade). Regarding Claim 6, Balek teaches wherein the first and second concave notches are symmetric with one another and wherein the ridge is centered relative to the first and second side surfaces of the body portion (Figs. 10-12). Regarding Claim 7, Balek teaches wherein the ridge is exposed to define a monopolar electrode or coated with an electrically conductive material to define a monopolar electrode (please note that since no power generator has been claimed and/or any energy or treatment to tissue, examiner takes the position that given the broadest reasonable interpretation since the blade is made of a conductive material “titanium alloy (i.e., Ti-6Al-4V), aluminum alloys, sapphire, stainless steel or any other acoustically compatible material” [0049] that it is interpreted to be an electrode and thus defining a monopolar electrode) . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 13 and 15-20 are allowed over the closest references on file. Idemoto teaches an ultrasonic blade (Figs. 3-7B) configured for use with an ultrasonic surgical instrument (ultrasonic horn used in a surgical operation), the ultrasonic blade comprising: a body portion defining a longitudinal axis extending therethrough and having a top surface 12, a bottom surface (marked on the annotated drawing below),a first side surface and a second side surface (marked on the annotated drawing below), and a distal end having a distal face 123, wherein the bottom surface includes an angled distal section (marked on the drawing below) that is angled towards the top surface in a proximal-to-distal direction such that a distal portion of the body portion tapers in height in the proximal-to-distal direction (Figs. 3-4),wherein a ridge extends along at least a portion of a length of the bottom surface, the ridge defining a variable height along a length thereof (Figs. 3-4); however, does not teach the ridge protruding from the angled distal section of the bottom surface. Neither of the cited references alone or in combination teach this limitation in combination with the claimed limitations of the claim in a whole. PNG media_image7.png 586 595 media_image7.png Greyscale Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 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 as necessitate by amendments. With respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 over Blake, in view of the amendments the rejection is based on the embodiment of Figs. 10-12 where Blake shows a top surface, a bottom surface, side surfaces and two concave notches defining a bottom central ridge section 1240. Applicant’s arguments are moot since they are directed to a different embodiment. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHADIJEH A VAHDAT whose telephone number is (571)270-7631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST. 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, Linda Dvorak can be reached on (571) 272-4764. 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. /KHADIJEH A VAHDAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/727,770 Page 2 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/727,770 Page 3 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/727,770 Page 4 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/727,770 Page 5 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/727,770 Page 6 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/727,770 Page 7 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/727,770 Page 8 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/727,770 Page 9 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/727,770 Page 10 Art Unit: 3794
Prosecution Insights