Detailed Action
This is the final office action for US application number 18/925,763. Claims are evaluated as filed on August 6, 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections in this office action have been amended to address the amended claims. Examiner directs Applicant to the rejection below for a more in-depth description of the limitations.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that claims 2, 7, and 9 have been amended to render the rejections under 35 USC 112b moot (Remarks p. 6), Examiner notes that only some of the noted clarity issues were addressed. Therefore, the unaddressed issues have been repeated herein.
Claim Objections
Examiner reminds Applicant that all claim amendments are required to be shown with markings/annotations as described in MPEP 714(II)(C)(B). At least instant claim 9 has been amended to depend from claim 7 without showing the prior dependency on claim 1 inside of double brackets. Any other unannotated amendments therein may have not been considered.
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(s) 2 and 7-9 is/are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are unclear with regards to “a distal end of the head of said grip” in lines 2-3 that is in addition to “a distal end of the head of said grip” of claim 1 line 10. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “directed towards [[a]]the distal end of the head of said grip.”.
Claim(s) 7 recites/recite the limitation "the at least one cylindrical sleeve comprises an axis of revolution that extends in a sagittal plane of the reusable surgical guide, in the direction of a distal end of the blade," in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the direction of a distal end of the blade" in the claim. Further, such is unclear as to the meaning of “an axis of revolution” there appears to be nothing disclosed to revolve/rotate and to what “in the direction” is intended to refer or the missing word prior to “in” or if the preceding comma is erroneous. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “the at least one cylindrical sleeve comprises an axis and in [[the]]a direction of a distal end of the blade,”.
Claim(s) 7 is/are unclear with regards to “said at least one cylindrical sleeve forming a sheath” in lines 3-4 and the intended difference between a sleeve and a sheath as such does not appear to be further limiting. Examiner is interpreting this broadly and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 9 is/are unclear with regards to “the at least one cylindrical sleeve comprises two parallel cylindrical sleeves whose axes of revolution extend in the sagittal plane of the guide, in the direction of a distal end of the blade,” in lines 1-4 with regards to “whose axes of revolution” in lines 2-3 and to whom “whose” is intended to refer as well as the meaning of “axis of revolution” as there appears to be nothing disclosed to revolve/rotate. Further, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the direction of a distal end of the blade" in the claim. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “the at least one cylindrical sleeve comprises two parallel cylindrical sleeves comprising axes that extend in the sagittal plane of the guide[[,]] and in [[the]]a direction of a distal end of the blade,”.
Claim(s) 9 is/are unclear with regards to “said two parallel cylindrical sleeves respectively forming a sheath” in line 4 and the intended difference between a sleeve and a sheath as such does not appear to be further limiting. Examiner is interpreting this broadly and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for its/their dependence on one or more rejected base claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5, and 11-14 are allowed.
Claims 2, 7, and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 is 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 if rewritten as suggested or consistent with the interpretation set forth in this Office action to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action for 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 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 AMY SIPP whose telephone number is (313)446-6553. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday, 6:30am-4pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong can be reached on 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 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.
/AMY R SIPP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights