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 .
Priority
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 08/27/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 14 has been amended and claim 14 has been withdrawn. Thus, claims 1-14 are presently pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 14 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/27/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, Species A in the reply filed on 08/27/2026 is acknowledged. The applicant did not elect a species from Group 2, and as such Group 2, Species A will be treated as elected. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Cotter does not teach the claimed technical features of claim 1. Specifically, that “a surface, on which at least two serrated tooth rows are arranged, the serrated tooth rows are spaced apart side by side from each other, and a cooling channel is defined between adjacent serrated tooth rows”. They argue that the serrated tooth rows are not spaced side by side from each other and that the cooling channel is not defined between adjacent serrated tooth rows. This is not found persuasive because since the rows 202 + 204 are slightly offset that are spaced side to side furthermore, the cooling channel 146 is between 204 and 202 as shown in Figs. 5B-5C, as there is no furthermore requirement in claim 1 (see annotated Fig. 5C below). Further the channel 146 is a cooling channel as it introduces fluid through the device to aid in cooling (see [0056]).
PNG
media_image1.png
302
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-13 objected to because of the following informalities
In claims 2-13, the limitation after the preamble “characterized in that” should be “wherein” or “further comprising” instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12 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 12 recites the limitation "the ultrasonic osteotome" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim or in claim 1 which claim 12 is dependent on. For the purpose of prior art examination this limitation will be interpreted as “the blade body”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cotter et al (US 20160374706 A1), herein referenced to as “Cotter”.
Claim 1
Cotter discloses: An ultrasonic scalpel blade 100 (see Figs. 1-4, [0049]), characterized in that it comprises a blade body 160 (see Figs. 1-4, [0054]) having a flat structure (see Figs. 1-4, 130 is flat), with two symmetrical lateral faces the upper and lower faces of 160 (see Figs. 1-5C, [0054], symmetrical as defined by the online Merriam-Webster dictionary is “capable of division by a longitudinal plane into similar halves”, the two halves of 160 can be divided along a longitudinal plane into similar halves from left and right) provided in a thickness direction the thickness from left to right of 160 of the blade body 160, and the lateral face the upper and lower faces of 160 is provided, at least one side thereof, with a cutting portion 202 + 204 (see Figs. 1-5C, [0060]) in an axial direction of the lateral face the upper face of 160, wherein the cutting portion 202 + 204 comprises a surface 214 (see Figs. 5A-5C, [0060]), on which at least two serrated tooth rows 202 + 204 (see Figs. 5A-5C, [0060]) are arranged, each serrated tooth row 202 + 204 is formed by aligning a row of serrated teeth (see [0060], teeth) in an axial direction longitudinal direction (see Figs. 5A-5C, [0060]) of the blade body 160, a cutting direction of the serrated teeth 202 + 204 is parallel (see Figs. 5A-5C, the cutting direction is parallel to the longitudinal direction) to the axial direction longitudinal direction of the blade body 160, the serrated tooth rows 202 + 204 are spaced side by side from each other (see annotated Fig. 5B below, the rows are slightly offset, hence are spaced to side to side), and a cooling channel 146 (see Figs. 1-5C, [0056], the channel is between 204 and 202, see also annotated Fig. 5C below) is defined between adjacent serrated tooth rows 202 + 204.
PNG
media_image2.png
349
796
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
302
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 4
Cotter discloses: The ultrasonic scalpel blade according to claim 1, see 102 rejection above. Cotter further discloses: characterized in that, the surface 214 is an axially extending end face (see Figs. 5A-5C, 214 extends along the axial direction of 160) of the cutting portion 202 + 204 of the blade body 160 and is located between the two symmetrical lateral faces the upper and lower faces of 160 split by the longitudinal axis along the axial direction, and the cooling channel 146 is a pathway recessed 146 is recessed below 214 (see annotated Fig. 5C below claim 1) in the surface 214.
Claim 5
Cotter discloses: The ultrasonic scalpel blade according to claim 4, see 102 rejection above. Cotter further discloses: characterized in that the cooling channel 146 has a depth that is uniform (see Figs. 3-4, 146 has a uniform depth along its length) or gradually changing (will not be examined here due to being an optional claim limitation) from near to far.
Claim 6
Cotter discloses: The ultrasonic scalpel blade according to claim 1, see 102 rejection above. Cotter further discloses: characterized in that an overall width the width of 146 is uniform along the longitudinal direction (see Figs. 3-4) of the cooling channel 146 in an axial direction the axial direction along the longitudinal direction (see Figs. 3-4) thereof is uniform.
Claim 7
Cotter discloses: The ultrasonic scalpel blade according to claim 1, see 102 rejection above. Cotter further discloses: characterized in that tooth tips the tooth tips of 202 + 204 (see Figs. 5A-5C) of adjacent two serrated tooth rows 202 + 204 have the same (see Figs. 5A-5C, the tooth tips are same orientations) or opposite (will not be examined here due to being an optional claim limitations) orientations.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotter in view of Ryd et al (US 5087261 A), herein referenced to as “Ryd”.
Claim 2
Cotter discloses: The ultrasonic scalpel blade according to claim 1, see 102 rejection above. Cotter does not explicitly disclose: characterized in that the cooling channel is located between tooth roots of the adjacent serrated tooth rows.
However, Ryd in a similar field of invention teaches a blade for the human body (see Figs. 1-4) with a blade body 1 with adjacent serrated tooth rows 28 + 29 (see Fig. 4) with a cooling channel 19 (see Fig. 4). Ryd further teaches: characterized in that the cooling channel 19 (see Fig. 4) is located between tooth roots the tooth roots of 28 + 29 (see Fig. 4, 19 is between the adjacent rows of 28 + 29 and between the roots of the individual teeth) of the adjacent serrated tooth rows 28 + 29.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cotter to incorporate the teachings of Ryd and teach an ultrasonic scalpel blade with the cooling channel is located between tooth roots of the adjacent serrated tooth rows. Motivation for such can be found in Ryd as this allows the coolant to carry off tissue residue or other residues away from the teeth portions (see col. 3, lines 17-29).
Claim 3
Cotter discloses: The ultrasonic scalpel blade according to claim 1, see 102 rejection above. Cotter further discloses: characterized in that, the surface 214 is an axially extending end face (see Figs. 5A-5C, 214 extends along the axial direction of 160) of the cutting portion 202 + 204 of the blade body 160.
Cotter does not explicitly disclose: and is located between the two symmetrical lateral faces, and the cooling channel is located on the surface.
However, Ryd in a similar field of invention teaches a blade for the human body (see Figs. 1-4) with a blade body 1 with adjacent serrated tooth rows 28 + 29 (see Fig. 4) with a cooling channel 19 (see Fig. 4), two symmetrical lateral faces the lateral faces of 22 that 28 + 29 originate from (see Fig. 4), and a surface the surface from which 28 + 29 originate and the cooling channel 19 extends across (see Fig. 4). Ryd further teaches: the surface the surface from which 28 + 29 originate and the cooling channel 19 extends across is located between the two symmetrical lateral faces the lateral faces of 22 that 28 + 29 originate from (see Fig. 4), and the cooling channel 19 is located on the surface the surface from which 28 + 29 originate and the cooling channel 19 extends across (see Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cotter to incorporate the teachings of Ryd and teach an ultrasonic scalpel blade with the surface is located between the two symmetrical lateral faces, and the cooling channel is located on the surface. Motivation for such can be found in Ryd as this allows the coolant to carry off tissue residue or other residues away from the teeth portions (see col. 3, lines 17-29).
Claim(s) 8 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotter in view of Hood et al (US 5695510 A), herein referenced to as “Hood”.
Claim 8
Cotter discloses: The ultrasonic scalpel blade according to claim 1, see 102 rejection above. Cotter does not explicitly disclose: characterized in that a blade edge arranged at the farthest end of the blade body is at least one of a sharp blade edge, a dull blade edge, or a serrated blade edge.
However, Hood in a similar field of invention teaches an ultrasonic scalpel blade 26 (see Figs. 1-3) with a blade body 34 (see Figs. 2-3). Hood further teaches: characterized in that a blade edge the distal blade end 38 (see Fig. 2, col. 6, lines 11-26) arranged at the farthest end of the blade body is at least one of a sharp blade edge (the alternatives to “serrated blade edge” will not be examined here due to being optional claim limitations), a dull blade edge, or a serrated blade edge (see Fig. 2, is a serrated blade edge).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cotter to incorporate the teachings of Hood and teach an ultrasonic scalpel blade with a blade edge arranged at the farthest end of the blade body is a serrated blade edge. Motivation for such can be found in Hood as spreading the contact surfaces allows for smaller individual contact surfaces to reduce the thermal footprint of the blade (see col. 6, lines 11-26).
Claim 12
Cotter discloses: The ultrasonic scalpel blade according to claim 1, see 102 rejection above. Cotter does not explicitly disclose: characterized in that at least one of the lateral faces of the ultrasonic osteotome is provided with a groove.
However, Hood in a similar field of invention teaches an ultrasonic scalpel blade 26 (see Figs. 1-3) with a blade body 34 (see Figs. 2-3) with lateral faces the faces of 34 including 36 (see Figs. 2-3). Hood further teaches: characterized in that at least one of the lateral faces one of the lateral faces of 34 including 36 (see Fig. 2) of the ultrasonic osteotome 34 (see 112b rejection, interpreted as “the blade body”) is provided with a groove 36 (see Fig. 2, col. 5-6, lines 64-10).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cotter to incorporate the teachings of Hood and teach an ultrasonic scalpel blade with at least one of the lateral faces of the ultrasonic osteotome is provided with a groove. Motivation for such can be found in Hood as this reduces the percentage of aera of the blade out of contact with the tissue, which reduces the thermal footprint allowing for minimum thermal footprint (see cols. 5-6, lines 64-10).
Claim 13
Cotter discloses: The ultrasonic scalpel blade according to claim 1, see 102 rejection above. Cotter does not explicitly disclose: characterized in that the blade comprises a blade edge located at the farthest end thereof, and two serrated tooth rows symmetrically arranged at both sides thereof along the axis of the blade body.
However, Hood in a similar field of invention teaches an ultrasonic scalpel blade 26 (see Figs. 1-3) with a blade body 34 (see Figs. 2-3) with lateral faces the faces of 34 including 36 (see Figs. 2-3). Hood further teaches: characterized in that the blade 26 comprises a blade edge the distal blade end 38 (see Fig. 2, col. 6, lines 11-26) located at the farthest end the distal end of 26 (see Fig. 2) thereof, and two serrated tooth rows the serrated rows of 38 on opposite sides of the distal blade end 38 (see Fig. 2) symmetrically arranged (see Fig. 2) at both sides thereof along the axis the longitudinal axis of 34 (see Fig. 2) of the blade body 34.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cotter to incorporate the teachings of Hood and teach an ultrasonic scalpel blade with the blade comprises a blade edge located at the farthest end thereof, and two serrated tooth rows symmetrically arranged at both sides thereof along the axis of the blade body. Motivation for such can be found in Hood as spreading the contact surfaces allows for smaller individual contact surfaces to reduce the thermal footprint of the blade (see col. 6, lines 11-26).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotter in view of Tepic et al (US 20250082341 A1), herein referenced to as “Tepic”.
Claim 9
Cotter discloses: The ultrasonic scalpel blade according to claim 1, see 102 rejection above. Cotter does not explicitly disclose: characterized in that a rake angle y of the serrated tooth is a positive rake angle, and a tooth tip angle p is not less than 45°.
However, Tepic in a similar field of invention teaches a surgical blade (see Fig. 1) with serrated teeth 1 + 2 (see Fig. 1). Tepic further teaches: characterized in that a rake angle y 12 (see Fig. 1, [0040]) of the serrated tooth 1 + 2 is a positive rake angle (see [0040], is a positive rake angle 12), and a tooth tip angle the angle of the tooth tip is greater than 45 degrees as it approaches 90 degrees (see annotated Fig. 1 below) p is not less than 45°.
PNG
media_image3.png
836
704
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cotter to incorporate the teachings of Tepic and teach an ultrasonic scalpel blade with a rake angle y of the serrated tooth is a positive rake angle, and a tooth tip angle p is not less than 45°. Motivation for such can be found in Tepic as this allows material that is being cut to be lifted into the volume between the teeth without causing undue stress concentrations that can cause failure of the saw/serrated teeth (see [0040]).
Claim 10
The combination of Cotter and Tepic teaches: The ultrasonic scalpel blade according to claim 9, see 103 rejection above. Tepic further teaches: characterized in that the serrated tooth 1 + 2 has the rake angle y 12 of 15°±5° 12 (see claim 1, rake angle 12 of 10 degrees which is 15 – 5, hence 10 degrees) and a clearance angle 15 (see Fig. 1, [0042], 15 is a clearance angle as it is in the angle of a turtle-back tooth) a of 20°±10° 15 (see Fig. 1, [0042], 15 degrees, which is 20-5 which is 15 degrees).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotter in view of Tepic and Idemoto et al (US 5188102 A), herein referenced to as “Idemoto”.
Claim 11
Cotter discloses: The ultrasonic scalpel blade according to claim 1, see 102 rejection above. Cotter does not explicitly disclose: characterized in that the serrated tooth is a turtle-back tooth, and a gap is formed between adjacent serrated teeth of the same serrated tooth row, and the cooling channel is communicated with the gap.
However, Tepic in a similar field of invention teaches a surgical blade (see Fig. 1) with serrated teeth 1 + 2 (see Fig. 1). Tepic further teaches: characterized in that the serrated tooth 1 + 2 is a turtle-back tooth (see Fig. 1, [0040], the shape of the tooth is a turtle-back tooth, see also applicant’s Fig. 10, element 124), and a gap the gaps/volume in between 1 + 2 (see [0040]) is formed between adjacent serrated teeth 1 + 2 of the same serrated tooth row the row of the teeth comprising 1 + 2.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cotter to incorporate the teachings of Tepic and teach an ultrasonic scalpel blade with the serrated tooth is a turtle-back tooth, and a gap is formed between adjacent serrated teeth of the same serrated tooth row. Motivation for such can be found in Tepic as this allows material that is being cut to be lifted into the volume between the teeth without causing undue stress concentrations that can cause failure of the saw/serrated teeth (see [0040]).
The combination of Cotter and Tepic does not explicitly teach: and the cooling channel is communicated with the gap.
However, Idemoto in a similar field of invention teaches an ultrasonic scalpel 11 (see Figs. 7-7C) with a cooling channel 13 + 124 (see Figs. 7-7C) and serrated teeth 12 (see Figs. 7-7C) with gaps 14 + 124 (see Figs. 7-7C) in between adjacent serrated teeth 12 (see Fig. 7). Idemoto further teaches: the cooling channel 13 + 124 is communicated with the gap 14 (see Fig. 7, col. 2, lines 27-32, col. 3, lines 50-68, 124 is communicated with the gaps 14).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Cotter and Tepic to incorporate the teachings of Idemoto and teach an ultrasonic scalpel blade with the cooling channel is communicated with the gap. Motivation for such can be found in Idemoto as this allows irrigation fluid to be directly sprayed onto the tissue portions to be cut preventing the tissue from being carbonized (see col. 2, lines 42-51).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Darian et al (US 20080058775 A1) teaches an ultrasonic cutting blade with cooling channel between serrated teeth (see Figs. 4B-4E)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAIHAN R KHANDKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6174. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 571-272-4695. 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.
RAIHAN R. KHANDKER
Examiner
Art Unit 3771
/RAIHAN R KHANDKER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3771
