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 06/10/2024.
, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) 1-7, 10, 11, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112914671 (CHENWEI et al., references made to translation provided) in view of U.S. Patent Number 6,136,014 (Sirimanne et al.)
Regarding claim 1-7, 10 CHENWEI et al. discloses as shown in Figures 1A, 1F, 1G, a surgical knife, comprising: a handle (handle 7, see paragraph [0037]) comprising a distal end and a proximal end opposite the distal end, the handle further comprising a control member (knob 8, see paragraph [0032]) ; a shaft (connecting rod 6, see paragraph [0032]) comprising a distal end and a proximal end opposite the distal end, the proximal end coupled to the distal end of the handle; a rod (rotating rod, see paragraph [0035]) disposed within the shaft and comprising a distal end and a proximal end opposite the distal end, wherein the proximal end of the rod is coupled to the control member, and wherein the rod is configured to rotate about a first rotation axis upon actuation of the control member; and a round blade (blade 1, see paragraph [0034]) rotatably coupled to the distal end of the rod and configured to rotate about a second rotation axis, wherein the second rotation axis is disposed at a fixed, non-zero angle relative to the first rotation axis, wherein the round blade comprises a substantially circular or oval disc-like shape, wherein only a portion of a circumference of the round blade comprises a sharpened cutting edge (at least one part of the circumference of the round blade comprises a sharpened cutting edge, the rest is considered unrecited subject matter not excluded by the claim language), wherein the second rotation axis is between 0 degrees and 90 or 360 degrees relative to the first rotation axis, wherein the round blade is coupled to the distal end of the rod by a universal joint or bevel gears (gears 52, 51), wherein the control member comprises a rotating component, a sliding button driving a leadscrew, a squeezing mechanism, or an electromotor controlled by a button, wherein the proximal end of the shaft is removably or fixedly coupled to the handle. See paragraph [0035].
Chenwei et al. fails to disclose the second rotation axis passes through a perimeter of the round blade.
Sirimanne et al., from the same field of endeavor teaches a similar surgical knife as shown in Fig. 16 where a second rotation axis passes through a perimeter of the round blade. See col. 10, lines 53-56.
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 surgical knife disclosed by Chenwei et al. by substituting blade 1 disclosed by Chenwei et al. for the one of cutting members (402, 404) and the supporting structure, such that the second rotation axis passes through a perimeter of the round blade because it would only require the simple substitution of one known alternative configuration for another to produce nothing but predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 11, Chenwei fails to disclose wherein the proximal end of the shaft is coupled to the handle at a non-zero angle relative to a major longitudinal axis of the handle.
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 surgical knife disclosed by Chenwei such that the proximal end of the shaft is coupled to the handle at a non-zero angle relative to a major longitudinal axis of the handle as a matter of engineering design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that the angle the proximal end of the shaft is couple to the handle provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. See paragraph [0072] of the specification.
One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Chenwei’s shaft, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either angle by Chenwei or the claimed non-zero angle because both angles would perform the same function of directing the distal end of the knife equally well considering the relative dimensions disclosed.
Regarding claim 15, CHENWEI et al. discloses wherein the shaft further comprises a fulcrum mechanism (rotating pin 5, see paragraph [0032]) for allowing adjustment of a tilt angle of the round blade
Claim(s) 8, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112914671 (CHENWEI et al., references made to translation provided) in view of U.S. Patent Number 6,136,014 (Sirimanne et al.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2007/0287993 (Himan et al.)
Regarding claim 8, 14 Chenwei fails to disclose wherein the handle further comprises a locking mechanism capable of securing the control member in at least a first position and a second position, a locking mechanism with continuous positioning capable of securing the control member at any position along a range of positions.
Himan et al., from a related field of endeavor teaches a similar toll as shown in Figures 17 with a similar control member (rotation knob) used for the same purpose of rotating wherein the handle further comprises a locking mechanism (sliding lock 1014, see paragraph [0066]) for securing the control member in at least a first position and a second position. See paragraphs [0066], [0067].
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 handle disclosed by Chenwei to include the locking mechanism taught by Himan et al. capable of securing the control member in at least a first position and a second position or capable of securing the control member at any position along a range of positions in order to configure the control member to be secured in at least a first position and a second position.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112914671 (CHENWEI et al., references made to translation provided) in view of U.S. Patent Number 6,136,014 (Sirimanne et al.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Number 5,527,330 (Tovey)
Regarding claim 9, Chenwei fails to disclose a suction tube disposed within the shaft, the suction tube in fluid communication with a distal port disposed at the distal end of the shaft and a proximal port disposed in the handle, wherein the proximal port is configured to be operably coupled with a vacuum source to provide a vacuum pressure at the distal port.
Tovey, from a related field of endeavor teaches a similar tool as shown in Figure 4, where a suction tube (suction tube 18) is disposed within a shaft (shaft 12), the suction tube in fluid communication with a distal port disposed at the distal end of the shaft and a, wherein a proximal port is configured to be operably coupled with a vacuum source to provide a vacuum pressure at the distal port, for the purpose of removing tissue cut in the body. See col. 3, lines 29-63.
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 surgical knife disclosed by Chenwei to include the suction tube taught by Tove in order to configure the knife to remove tissue after it is cut by the blade.
It would have been further obvious to configure the proximal port to be disposed in the handle because it would only require a rearrangement of parts without changing how the device operates. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82, USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112914671 (CHENWEI et al., references made to translation provided) in view of U.S. Patent Number 6,136,014 (Sirimanne et al.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view ofU.S. Patent Publication Number 2008/0065116 (Lee et al.)
Regarding claim 12, Chenwei fails to disclose the shaft is rotatable relative to the handle.
Lee et al., from a related field of endeavor teaches a similar instrument as shown in Figure 1 where the instrument includes a similar shaft is rotatable relative to the handle. See paragraph [0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the shaft disclosed by Chenwei to be is rotatable relative to the handle as taught by Lee et al. in order to configure the radial position of the shaft to be adjustable relative to the hand.
Regarding claim 13, Chenwei fails to disclose wherein the proximal end of the shaft is coupled to the handle at a non-zero angle relative to a major longitudinal axis of the handle.
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 surgical knife disclosed by Chenwei such that the proximal end of the shaft is coupled to the handle at a non-zero angle relative to a major longitudinal axis of the handle as a matter of engineering design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that the angle the proximal end of the shaft is couple to the handle provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. See paragraph [0072] of the specification.
One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Chenwei’s shaft, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either angle by Chenwei or the claimed non-zero angle because both angles would perform the same function of directing the distal end of the knife equally well considering the relative dimensions disclosed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-7, 10, 15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 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