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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 07/06/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 10-11, 15, and 20 have been amended and claims 2-3 and 13 have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1, 4-12, and 14-20 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 07/06/2026, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The applicant’s drawings have been accepted and overcome the drawing objections of not showing claimed elements. Additionally, amendments to claim language overcome the elements not being shown in the drawings.
The drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 07/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goldin et al (US 20070106310 A1), herein referenced to as “Goldin” have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Claim 20 has been amended by the applicant to further recite “the anvil assembly having a top wall… the blade slot including a first slot wall and a second slot wall… the first slot wall and the second slot wall being spaced apart from the cutting edge throughout the movement of the blade within the blade slot such that the cutting edge does not contact the anvil assembly, whereby the blade cuts a suture at the top wall with the suture remaining substantially outside the blade slot”.
The examiner agrees that Goldin does not teach the amended claim limitations, particularly the first slot wall and the second slot wall are spaced apart from the cutting edge such that it does not contact the anvil assembly, with the suture being cut and remaining substantially outside the blade slot (see Figs. 9-10 of Goldin).
The applicant argues that Griffiths does not teach the amended claim limitations. The examiner agrees, as while the blade 126a of Griffiths does not contact the inner surfaces of 130, hence being spaced apart from a first and second slot wall, it does contact the anvil assembly see Fig. 3B, and ([0034], slide up and down the 130).
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nachimias et al (US 20200214693 A1), herein referenced to as “Nachimias”.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 07/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldin et al (US 20070106310 A1), herein referenced to as “Goldin” in view of Griffiths (US 20140005689 A1), herein referenced to as “Griffiths” have been fully considered and are persuasive.
For similar reasons to the amendments to claim 20, the amendments overcome the Goldin and Griffiths references.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nachimias et al (US 20200214693 A1), herein referenced to as “Nachimias”.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/07/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claims 15-16 and 18 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 15 recites the limitation "the top wall" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art examination this limitation will be interpreted as “the top surface”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is rejected as being dependent on claim 15.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a cutting edge” in line 1, it is not clear if this refers to the “a cutting edge” in claim 1, which claim 18 is dependent on, or another cutting edge. For the purpose of prior art examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the cutting edge”. 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, 4, 6-7, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nachmias et al (US 20200214693 A1), herein referenced to as “Nachmias”.
Claim 1
Nachmias discloses: A suture cutting tool 100 (see Figs. 1A-12, [0169]) comprising: - a housing 102 + 116 (see Figs. 1A-12, [0170] and [0172]) with a distal end 242 (see Fig. 8A, [0198]), a proximal end 110 (see Figs. 1A-12, [0172]), and an inner bore 132 + 246 (see Figs. 8A-8D and 9B, [0175]-[0176] and [0199]) defined therethrough, the housing 102 + 116 further comprising a main body 116 (see Figs. 1A-12, [0170]) having an anvil assembly 250 (see Figs. 1A-12, [0198]), the anvil assembly 242 positioned at the distal end 242 of the housing 102 + 116, the main body 116 and anvil assembly 250 coupled by a connecting bridge (see annotated Fig. 9A below) to define a suture slot 254 (see Figs. 1A-12, [0201]), the anvil assembly 250 having a top surface (see annotated Fig. 12 below) facing the inner bore 132 + 246 and defining a blade slot (see annotated Fig. 12 below) between a first (see annotated Fig. 12 below) and second side (see annotated Fig. 12 below) of the top surface (see annotated Fig. 12 below), the blade slot (see annotated Fig. 12 below) having a first slot wall (see annotated Fig. 12 below), and a second slot wall (see annotated Fig. 12 below) opposite the first slot wall (see annotated Fig. 12 below), and a bottom wall (see annotated Fig. 12 below) extending between the first slot wall (see annotated Fig. 12 below) and the second slot wall (see annotated Fig. 12 below);- a plunger assembly 106 + 224 of 114 (see Figs. 1A-12, [0171] and [0195]) having a plunger rod 224 (see Figs. 7A and 9A-11B, [0195] and [0232], the plunger rod 224 is part of 114 which is connected to a blade 222 at the distal end) slidably movable within the inner bore 246 of the housing 102 + 116 with a first end 106 (see Fig. 9A, [0171], 106 extends outside of 102) extending beyond the housing 102 + 116 and a distal end distal end of 114 (see Figs. 1A-12, which extends into 254, outside of 246) extendable beyond the inner bore 246 of the housing 102 + 116,- a blade 222 (see Figs. 1A-12, [0195]-[0196]) coupled to the distal end the distal end of 114 (see Fig. 7A) of the plunger rod 114 and including a cutting edge 230 (see Figs. 1A-12, [0196]), the blade 222 being movable along with the plunger assembly 114 (see Figs. 9A-11B) between at least a first position (see Figs. 10A-10B, [0210] and [0217]-[0218], 230 is at least partially within 254, but not actually fully into the blade slot, as in Fig. 11B) having the cutting edge 230 within the suture slot 254 to a second position (see Figs. 11A-11B, [0219]-[0232]) having the cutting edge 230 within the blade slot (see annotated Fig. 12 below and Fig. 11B) of the anvil assembly 250, the cutting edge 230 remaining spaced apart from the first side and the second side of the top surface (see Fig. 11B, the cutting edge 230 is directed towards the bottom of the device, away from the first and second sides of the top surface that point proximally, and additionally, do not come in contact with the slot walls as it points downwards and not laterally towards either slot wall, and as can be seen in Fig. 12 is narrower than the blade slot), the first slot wall, the second slot wall, and from the bottom wall (230 does not contact the bottom wall, which is distal, while the cutting edge 230 faces downward), such that the cutting edge 230 (see Fig. 11B, 230 does not contact any portion of the anvil assembly) does not contact the anvil assembly 250;- whereupon movement between the first and second positions, the cutting edge 230 is structurally configured to cut a suture positioned on the top surface (see annotated Fig. 12 below, the suture is positioned on top of the top surface as is cut across it, [0232]) traversing the blade slot (see annotated Fig. 12 below) within the suture slot 254, the suture being cut at the top surface such that the suture remains substantially outside of the blade slot (see Fig. 12, as the suture is cut, it is shown as not being within the blade slot and only within 254, in order to be cut as close to the knot as possible, [0232], which is more distal than the blade slot, as the suture slot 254 extends more distally than the blade slot).
PNG
media_image1.png
570
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
626
1017
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 4
Nachmias discloses: The suture cutting tool of claim 1, see 102 rejection above. Nachmias further discloses: wherein the blade 222 defines a thickness (see annotated Fig. 11B below) and, upon insertion into the blade slot (see annotated Fig. 11B below), a distance between the blade (see annotated Fig. 11B below) and the first wall (see annotated Fig. 11B below) and the blade 222 and the second wall (see annotated Fig. 11B below)is less than or equal to the thickness (see annotated Fig. 11B below) of the blade 222.
PNG
media_image3.png
644
845
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 6
Nachmias discloses: The suture cutting tool of claim 1, see 102 rejection above. Nachmias further discloses: further including a return spring 108 (see Figs. 1C, 4, 9B, 10B, and 11B, [0171] and [0187]-[0188], leaf spring) having a first end 196 (see Figs. 1C, 4, 9B, 10B, and 11B, [0189]) interfacing with the housing 102 and a second end 198 (see Figs. 1C, 4, 9B, 10B, and 11B, [0189], interfaces with 114 via 106) interfacing with the plunger rod 106, the return spring 108 forcing the blade away from the second position (see Figs. 11A-11B, the spring 108, pushes 106 into the unactuated state, causing 114 and hence 222 and 230 to return proximally into positions shown in Figs. 9A-10B).
Claim 7
Nachmias discloses: The suture cutting tool of claim 1, see 102 rejection above. Nachmias further discloses: wherein in the first position (see Figs. 10A-10B), the cutting edge 230 is positioned within the inner bore 246 of the housing 116.
Claim 14
Nachmias discloses: The suture cutting tool of claim 1, see 102 rejection above. Nachmias further discloses: wherein the plunger rod 224 defines a longitudinal axis of travel (see Figs. 9A-12, 224 moves longitudinally through 246 of 116 during actuation) within the inner bore 246, with the top surface (see annotated Fig. 12 below claim 1) of the anvil assembly 250 being substantially perpendicular (see annotated Fig. 12 below claim 1, the top surface of the anvil assembly 250 is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of travel) thereto.
Claim 15
Nachmias discloses: The suture cutting tool of claim 1, see 102 rejection above. Nachmias further discloses: wherein the first slot wall and second slot wall are parallel (see annotated Fig. 12 below claim 1, the first and second slot walls are parallel to each other) to each other and perpendicular to the top wall (interpreted as “top surface”, see 112b rejection above, see annotated Fig. 12 below claim 1, the first and second slot walls are perpendicular to the top surface).
Claim 16
Nachmias discloses: The suture cutting tool of claim 1, see 102 rejection above. Nachmias further discloses: wherein the housing 102 + 116 comprises two components 102 + 116 (see Fig. 1C) coupled end to end, the first component being the main body 116 and the second component 102 being a sleeve 102 (see Figs. 1C-1D, [0170], the housing of 102 is a sleeve for the components of 102), with the plunger rod 114 extending through the main body 116 and the sleeve 102 (see Figs. 1A-12, 114 extends through 116 and 102, with a proximal end extending through 102).
Claim 17
Nachmias discloses: The suture cutting tool of claim 1, see 102 rejection above. Nachmias further discloses: wherein the connecting bridge (see annotated Fig. 9A below) further includes a facing wall (see annotated Fig. 9A below), with the blade slot (see annotated Fig. 9A below) meeting the facing wall.
PNG
media_image4.png
570
864
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 18
Nachmias discloses: The suture cutting tool of claim 1, see 102 rejection above. Nachmias further discloses: wherein the blade 222 includes a cutting edge 230, with the cutting edge 230 being substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal axis the longitudinal axis of 224 (see Figs. 1A-12, 230 is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the plunger rod by facing downwards) of the plunger rod 224.
Claim 19
Nachmias discloses: providing suture cutting tool of claim 1, see 102 rejection above. Nachmias further discloses: A method of using a suture cutting tool comprising the steps of - providing the suture cutting tool of claim 1 (see 102 rejection above); - placing a suture 260 (see Fig. 12, [0231]-[0232]) into the suture slot 254 (see Fig. 12, [0232]) and across the blade slot (see annotated Fig. 12 below claim 1); - directing the plunger rod 224 from the first position to the second position (see Figs. 11A-12, [0232], advanced distally and the cutting edge 230 cuts 260); and - cutting the suture as the blade passes beyond the top wall (see annotated Fig. 12 below claim 1, [0232]).
Claim 20
Nachmias discloses: A suture cutting tool 100 (see Figs. 1A-12, [0169]) comprising:- a housing 102 + 116 (see Figs. 1A-12, [0170] and [0172]) having a proximal end 110 (see Figs. 1A-12, [0172]) and a distal end 242 (see Fig. 8A, [0198]), with an internal bore 132 + 246 (see Figs. 8A-8D and 9B, [0175]-[0176] and [0199]) extending therethrough, the distal end 242 defining a suture slot 254 (see Figs. 1A-12, [0201], 254 is perpendicular/transverse to the longitudinal internal bore 246) that is transverse to the internal bore 246, with the housing 102 + 116 terminating with an anvil assembly 250 (see Figs. 1A-12, [0198]) opposite the suture slot 254 (the anvil assembly 250 is opposite across the suture slot 254 from a distal portion of 116);- the anvil assembly 250 having a top wall (see annotated Fig. 12 below) extending thereacross with a blade slot (see annotated Fig. 12 below) depending from the top wall (see annotated Fig. 12 below), the blade slot (see annotated Fig. 12 below) including a first slot wall (see annotated Fig. 12 below) and a second slot wall (see annotated Fig. 12 below); - a plunger rod 224 (see Figs. 7A and 9A-11B, [0195] and [0232], the plunger rod 224 is part of 114 which is connected to a blade 222 at the distal end) slidably positionable within the internal bore 246 with a first end 106 (see Fig. 9A, [0171], 106 extends outside of 102) extending outside of the proximal end 110 and a second end the distal end of 114 (see Fig. 7A) having a blade 222 (see Figs. 1A-12, [0195]-[0196]) that is insertable into the suture slot 254 (see Figs. 10A-10B, [0210] and [0217]-[0218], 230 is at least partially within 254, but not actually fully into the blade slot, as in Fig. 11B) and a cutting edge 230 (see Figs. 1A-12, [0196]) of which is insertable into the blade slot (see Figs. 11A-11B, [0219]-[0232], see also annotated Fig. 12 below and Fig. 11B), the first slot wall and the second slot wall (see Fig. 11B, the cutting edge 230 is directed towards the bottom of the device, away from the first and second sides of the top surface that point proximally, and additionally, do not come in contact with the slot walls as it points downwards and not laterally towards either slot wall, and as can be seen in Fig. 12 is narrower than the blade slot) being spaced apart from the cutting edge 230 throughout the movement of the blade 222 within the blade slot (see annotated Fig. 12 below) such that the cutting edge 230 does not contact (see Fig. 11B, 230 does not contact any portion of the anvil assembly) the anvil assembly 250, whereby the blade 222 cuts a suture 260 260 (see Fig. 12, [0231]-[0232]) at the top wall (see annotated Fig. 12 below, the suture is positioned on top of the top surface as is cut across it, [0232]) with the suture remaining substantially outside the blade slot (see Fig. 12, as the suture is cut, it is shown as not being within the blade slot and only within 254, in order to be cut as close to the knot as possible, [0232], which is more distal than the blade slot, as the suture slot 254 extends more distally than the blade slot).
PNG
media_image4.png
570
864
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
626
1017
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nachmias in view of Kihiczak (US 20250057514 A1), herein referenced to as “Kihiczak” and Zung et al (US 20190261964 A1), herein referenced to as “Zung”.
Claim 5
Nachmias discloses: The suture cutting tool of claim 4, see 102 rejection above. Nachmias further discloses: with the blade 222 substantially bisecting the blade slot (see annotated Figs. 9B, 11B, and 12 above claims 1 and 4 above).
Nachmias does not explicitly disclose: wherein the blade has a thickness of 0.004’’ and the blade slot has a width of 0.010’’.
However, Kihiczak in a similar field of invention teaches a medical cutting tool/blade 200 (see Fig. 2). Kihiczak further teaches: wherein the blade 200 has a thickness of 0.004’’ (see [0032], thickness selected from a range of 0.1 mm-0.4mm, 0.004’’ equals 0.1016 mm, hence Kihiczak disclose a thickness of 0.004’’ which is in between 0.1 mm to 0.4 mm).
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 Nachmias to incorporate the teachings of Kihiczak and teach a suture cutting tool with the blade has a thickness of 0.004’’. Motivation for such can be found in Kihiczak as this allows for a downward cut to result in a specifically thin diameter while resulting in sharp borders with less cuts needed (see [0049]-[0051]).
The combination of Nachmias and Kihiczak does not explicitly teach: the blade slot has a width of 0.010’’.
Zung in a similar field of invention teaches a cutting tool 10’ (see Figs. 2A-4A) with a blade 42 (see Fig. 4) and a blade slot 46 (see Fig. 4). Zung further teaches: the blade slot 46 has a width of 0.010’’ (see [0095], width of about 0.10 inches).
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 Nachmias and Kihiczak to incorporate the teachings of Zung and teach a suture cutting tool with the blade slot has a width of 0.010’’. Motivation for such can be found in Zung as this allows the slot to receive at least a portion of the blade, while minimizing the amount of drag the suture induces when pierced/cut through (see [0095]).
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nachmias in view of Shi et al (US 20230309879 A1), herein referenced to as “Shi”.
Claim 8
Nachmias discloses: The suture cutting tool of claim 4, see 102 rejection above. Nachmias does not explicitly disclose: - at least one longitudinal slot defined into the inner bore of the housing terminating at the proximal end of the housing; - at least one outer surface tab on an outer surface of the plunger rod, the at least one outer surface tab slidably movable within the at least one longitudinal slot of the housing, - the at least one longitudinal slot capturing the at least one outer surface tab so as to constrain relative rotation of the plunger rod to the housing.
However, Shi in a similar field of invention teaches a medical cutting/puncturing tool 1 (see Figs. 1-18) with a housing 17 (see Figs. 1-18) with a proximal end the proximal end of 17 (see Figs 1-7) an inner bore the lumen of 17 (see Figs. 5-7) and a plunger rod 10 (see Figs. 1-18). Shi further teaches: at least one longitudinal slot 14 (see Figs. 1-18, [0071]) defined into the inner bore the lumen of 17 (see Figs. 5-7) of the housing 17 terminating at the proximal end the proximal end of 17 (see Figs. 5-7) of the housing 17; at least one outer surface tab 15 (see Figs. 1-18, [0071]) on an outer surface the outer surface of 10 (see Figs. 1-18) of the plunger rod 10, the at least one outer surface tab 15 slidably movable (see [0076]) within the at least one longitudinal slot 14 of the housing 17, the at least one longitudinal slot 14 capturing the at least one outer surface tab 10 (see Figs. 5-7, [0076]) so as to constrain relative rotation (see [0076]-[0077], rotational restriction) of the plunger rod 10 to the housing 17.
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 inner bore of the housing of Nachmias to incorporate the teachings of Shi and teach a suture cutting tool with at least one longitudinal slot defined into the inner bore of the housing terminating at the proximal end of the housing; at least one outer surface tab on an outer surface of the plunger rod, the at least one outer surface tab slidably movable within the at least one longitudinal slot of the housing, the at least one longitudinal slot capturing the at least one outer surface tab so as to constrain relative rotation of the plunger rod to the housing. Motivation for such can be found in Shi as this allows for choosing the level of depth that a blade/needle cuts/puncture by allowing for rotational selecting of a state and then a rotational lock as the device is axially driven (see [0076]-[0077]).
Claim 9
The combination of Nachmias and Shi teaches: The suture cutting tool of claim 8, see 103 rejection above.
The language, "wherein the at least one outer surface tab and the at least one longitudinal slot are configured to increasingly constrain relative rotation of the plunger rod to the housing as the blade is directed from the first position to the second position," constitutes functional claim language, indicating that the claimed device need only be capable of being used in such a manner. The claim, however, is an apparatus claim, and is to be limited by structural limitations. The Office submits that the device of Nachmias and Shi meets the structural limitations of the claim, and is capable of the interaction between the outer surface tab and the at least one longitudinal slot to increasingly constrain relative rotation of the plunger rod to the housing as it moves axially distally, due to element 20 distally located extends further radially inward which increases the surface area of contact for any form of rotation at it, which it limits it more than the protrusions forming the slots 14, which are not as radially inward.
Furthermore, wherein in product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Claim 10
The combination of Nachmias and Shi teaches: The suture cutting tool of claim 8, see 103 rejection above. Shi further teaches: wherein the at least one outer surface tab 15 comprises four outer surface tabs 15 (see Figs. 14-18, [0075], there is a respective 15 for a slot 14, there are least 4 slots, hence there are at least four outer surface tabs 15) and the at least one longitudinal slot 14 comprises four longitudinal slots 14 (see Figs. 5-7, [0075], at least 4 slots 14, spaced apart within the lumen of 17), spaced apart on the inner bore the lumen of 17 (see Figs. 5-7) of the housing 17.
Claim 11
The combination of Nachmias and Shi teaches: The suture cutting tool of claim 8, see 103 rejection above. Shi further teaches: wherein the at least one outer surface tab 15 has a lower end tab wall the radially inward wall of 15 that engages with 20 (see Fig. 16) that interfaces with a distal stop 20 (see Figs. 14-16, [0083]) that precludes further movement (see Figs. 15-16, 20 prevents further distal movement of 15 distally) in the direction of the second end the distal end of 17 (see Figs. 14-16).
Claim 12
The combination of Nachmias and Shi teaches: The suture cutting tool of claim 8, see 103 rejection above. Shi further teaches: wherein the outer surface the outer surface of 34 of the plunger rod 34 further includes a plurality of protrusions the protrusions defined by 36 (see Figs. 32-39, [0103], there are 4 protrusions) extending outwardly the protrusions defined by 36 extend outwardly form 34 (see Fig. 32) therefrom, the plurality of protrusions 36 interfacing with the inner bore 17 (see Figs. 37-39, 36 interfacing with 32).
The language, " so as to improve alignment of the blade relative to the blade slot as the blade is directed to the second position," constitutes functional claim language, indicating that the claimed device need only be capable of being used in such a manner. The claim, however, is an apparatus claim, and is to be limited by structural limitations. The Office submits that the device of Nachmias and Shi meets the structural limitations of the claim, and is capable of the protrusions aligning with the inner bore guides in order to prevent rotation of the plunger rod, hence keeping the blade aligned relative to the distal slot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stewart et al (US 7695470 B1) teaches a suture/vessel cutting device with a blade slot and a suture slot, wherein a suture/vessel does not enter the blade slot (see Figs. 2A and 2D)
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 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
Prosecution Insights