DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on May 21, 2026.
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 23, 24, 29-31, 33, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korner et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9211135) in view of .
Korner et al. discloses a rotary cutting tool comprising: an outer shaft (4) having a proximal end and a distal end along a longitudinal axis (D); a drive shaft (14) disposed within the outer shaft and extending between the proximal end and the distal end (column 5, Lines 19-25); an articulating support housing (10) coupled to the distal end of the outer shaft and pivotable relative to the drive shaft between a non-articulated position (Figure 2) and one or more articulated positions (Figure 4); and a rotary cutting bit (8) coupled to the articulating support housing and pivotable with the articulating support housing and relative to the outer shaft about a constant velocity joint formed between the rotary cutting bit and drive shaft (Figure 7).
Korner et al. fails to discloses the pivot point of the articulating support member is about a joint axis, that is transverse to and intersects the longitudinal axis and the constant velocity joint being positioned along the joint axis. Carrison et al. teaches a tissue removal probe with an outer shaft (104) a drive shaft (560) within the outer shaft. An articulating support housing (106) is coupled to the outer shaft and pivotable to the drive shaft about a joint axis, that is transverse to and intersects the longitudinal axis (Figure 7A, 7B). Furthermore, a constant velocity joint is positioned along the joint axis (Figure 7B and 10B). Shifting the pivot point of Korner et al. to be aligned with longitudinal axis would have been obvious to one skilled in the art in view of Carrison et al. since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
The following claims are unpatentable over Korner et al. in view of Carrison et al. however reference is made to Korner et al. unless otherwise stated.
Regarding claim 24, the rotary cutting tool further comprises a trigger (44) assembly coupled to the proximal end of the outer shaft (Figure 5) and configured to cause the rotary cutting bit and articulating support housing to pivot relative to the outer shaft between the non-articulated position and the one or more articulated positions (C.
Regarding claim 29, the rotary cutting bit includes a multi-faceted ball (26) forming the constant velocity joint with the drive shaft. (Elements 32 considered facets)
Regarding claim 30, rotary cutting tool of further comprises: a connecting portion (12) connected to the distal end of the outer shaft, the connecting portion pivotably connecting the articulating support housing to the outer shaft (Figure 7).
Regarding claim 31, a rotary socket (16) rotatably fixed to the drive shaft such that rotation of the drive shaft causes the rotary socket to rotate, wherein the rotary socket and the rotary cutting bit for the constant velocity joint such that rotation of the rotary socket causes the rotary cutting bit to rotate.
Regarding claim 33, the rotary cutting tool further comprises: a fluid suction intake located at the proximal end of the outer shaft, the fluid suction intake fluidly coupled to a tunnel defined by the outer shaft and the drive shaft (Column 3, Lines 44-55).
Regarding claim 34, Korner et al. further fails to disclose the articulating support housing includes a shield integrally formed with the articulating support housing, the shield configured to protect adjacent tissue and/or structures during burring of the rotary cutting bit when in use. Carrison et al. further teaches that the articulating support structure (106) has a shield integrally formed therewith (Figure 7B, only one side of cutting tool 166 is exposed). This allows tissue to be removed while protecting tissue at the opposite side of the cutting tool (Paragraph 45). It would have been obvious to construct the device of Korner et al. with a shield in view of Carrison et al. to protect tissue on the opposite of the exposed cutting tool portion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 35-42 allowed.
Claims 25-28, 32, 33, objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 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 ANDREW YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3472. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 9:00 M-F.
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, Kevin Truong can be reached at 571-272-4705. 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.
/ANDREW YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights