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
In response to the amendment filed on 7/14/2026, no claims have been cancelled, and Claims 1 and newly added Claims 2-20 are pending.
Amendments to claim 1 to remedy 112(b) issues has been acknowledged and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Sharifi-Mehr also does not teach such a lateral movement feature of a blade as recited in claim 1”, however Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sharifi-Mehr discloses a cutting apparatus is inserted into a guide tube 1670 of a surgical robot 1660 for creating an incision (paragraph 12-14, 79-83, Fig. 36-37) and a handle 1625 (Fig. 34) that allows a surgeon to move the incision tool and control the angulation of the tool for the angle of insertion (paragraph 81). Fig. 37 shows a pivot pin and a pin guide path (see below screenshot pointing to the parts) that allows the surgeon to laterally move the incision tool and blade.
PNG
media_image1.png
274
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim 5 (pg. 5 of claim set of 7/14/2026 which is dependent on claim 11) been renumbered to claim 15.
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 6 and 16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the housing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner best interprets this to be “a housing of the cutting apparatus”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the housing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner best interprets this to be “a housing of the cutting apparatus”.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20210137535 Sharifi-Mehr et al. (hereinafter Sharifi-Mehr).
Regarding claim 1, Sharifi-Mehr discloses a method of creating an incision through a robot guide tube (paragraph 12-14, 79-83, Fig. 33-37) comprising:
inserting a cutting apparatus (Fig. 33) into a guide tube (1670) of a surgical robot (1660) such that a blade (960) at a distal end of the cutting apparatus extends distal to a distal end of the guide tube (as seen in Fig. 36) and a handle (1625, Fig. 34) at a proximal end of a swing scalpel (1610) is proximal to a proximal end of the guide tube (1670) (as seen in Fig. 36);
after inserting the swing scalpel, unlocking the cutting apparatus (paragraph 84 discloses that the system may include a locking mechanism to fix the orientation of the incision tool. Sharifi-Mehr et al. is silent on unlocking, however, a locking mechanism needs to be in an unlocked state in order to be locked. Therefore, the locking mechanism can inherently be unlocked);
laterally moving the handle in a first direction to a first position such that a tip of the blade reaches a first point by moving in an opposite direction (paragraph 80-83, Fig. 36-37, handle 1625 allows surgeon to move the incision tool and control the angulation of the tool for the angle of insertion, Fig. 37 shows a pivot pin and a pin guide path (see above screenshot pointing to parts) that allows the surgeon to laterally move the incision tool and blade to a first point in a direction by moving the handle in an opposite first direction); and
laterally moving the handle in a second direction to a second position such that a tip of the blade reaches a second point by moving in an opposite direction (paragraph 80-83, Fig. 36-37, handle 1625 allows surgeon to move the incision tool and control the angulation of the tool for the angle of insertion, Fig. 37 shows a pivot pin and a pin guide path (see above screenshot pointing to parts) that allows the surgeon to laterally move the incision tool and blade to a second point in a direction by moving the handle in an opposite second direction),
wherein either or both of the first point and the second point is outside of an inner diameter of the guide tube (guide tube 1670 has an inner diameter as seen in Fig. 37) such that a distance between the first and second points is greater than an inner diameter of the robot guide tube (it can be inferred from the pivot pin and pin guide path as seen in the annotated Fig. 37 that either or both the first point and the second point is outside of the inner diameter of the guide tube 1670 and the distance between the first point and second point is greater than the inner diameter of the guide tube 1670).
Regarding claim 3, Sharifi-Mehr discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses further comprising:
forming an incision with the blade such that a skin-level length of the incision is longer than an inner diameter of the guide tube (paragraph 80-83, Fig. 36-37, handle 1625 allows surgeon to move the incision tool and control the angulation of the tool for the angle of insertion, Fig. 37 shows a pivot pin and a pin guide path (see above screenshot pointing to parts) that allows the surgeon to laterally move the incision tool and blade between the first point and second point, and it can be inferred from the pivot pin and pin guide path as seen in the annotated Fig. 37 above that the distance between the first point and second point is greater than the inner diameter of the guide tube 1670),
wherein forming the incision includes the step of laterally moving the handle in the second direction (moving the handle laterally in the second direction causes the tip of the blade to move to the second point to further extend the incision).
Regarding claim 7, Sharifi-Mehr discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the cutting apparatus comprises:
a housing (1623, Fig. 34-37) defining a scalpel guide (housing 1623 of the cutting apparatus has grooves (part not labeled in original document – see annotated Fig. 37 above pointing to part) that act as a scalpel guide that engage with longitudinal slots (Fig. 33 part 1679) of guide tube 1670, which allows for control of the angulation/rotation of the scalpel (paragraph 82));
the swing scalpel (1610) longer than a length of the housing (as seen in Fig. 33-37) and having a movement path constrained by the scalpel guide (the scalpel is coupled to the scalpel guide and therefore the movement path is constrained by the scalpel guide when engaged with the longitudinal slots 1679 of guide tube 1670);
the handle (1625) coupled to a proximal end (1614, Fig. 34) of the swing scalpel; and
a blade holder (1628, Fig. 34) at a distal end (1618, Fig. 34) of the swing scalpel.
Regarding claim 11, Sharifi-Mehr discloses a method of creating an incision through a robot guide tube (paragraph 12-14, 79-83, Fig. 33-37) comprising:
inserting a cutting apparatus (Fig. 33) into a guide tube (1670) of a surgical robot (1660) such that a blade (960) at a distal end of the cutting apparatus extends distal to a distal end of the guide tube (as seen in Fig. 36) and a handle (1625, Fig. 34) at a proximal end of a scalpel (1610) is proximal to a proximal end of the guide tube (1670) (as seen in Fig. 36);
after inserting the scalpel, unlocking the cutting apparatus (paragraph 84 discloses that the system may include a locking mechanism to fix the orientation of the incision tool. Sharifi-Mehr et al. is silent on unlocking, however, a locking mechanism needs to be in an unlocked state in order to be locked. Therefore, the locking mechanism can inherently be unlocked);
moving the handle in a first direction to a first position such that a tip of the blade reaches a first point by moving laterally in a first lateral direction (paragraph 80-83, Fig. 36-37, handle 1625 allows surgeon to move the incision tool and control the angulation of the tool for the angle of insertion, Fig. 37 shows a pivot pin and a pin guide path (see above screenshot pointing to parts) that allows the surgeon to laterally move the incision tool and blade to a first point in a direction by moving the handle in an opposite first direction); and
moving the handle in a second direction to a second position such that a tip of the blade reaches a second point by moving laterally in an opposite direction (paragraph 80-83, Fig. 36-37, handle 1625 allows surgeon to move the incision tool and control the angulation of the tool for the angle of insertion, Fig. 37 shows a pivot pin and a pin guide path (see above screenshot pointing to parts) that allows the surgeon to laterally move the incision tool and blade to a second point in a direction by moving the handle in an opposite second direction),
wherein either or both of the first point and the second point is outside of an inner diameter of the guide tube (guide tube 1670 has an inner diameter as seen in Fig. 37) such that a distance between the first and second points is greater than an inner diameter of the robot guide tube (it can be inferred from the pivot pin and pin guide path as seen in the annotated Fig. 37 that either or both the first point and the second point is outside of the inner diameter of the guide tube 1670 and the distance between the first point and second point is greater than the inner diameter of the guide tube 1670).
Regarding claim 13, Sharifi-Mehr discloses the limitations of claim 11, and further discloses further comprising:
forming an incision with the blade such that a skin-level length of the incision is longer than an inner diameter of the guide tube (paragraph 80-83, Fig. 36-37, handle 1625 allows surgeon to move the incision tool and control the angulation of the tool for the angle of insertion, Fig. 37 shows a pivot pin and a pin guide path (see above screenshot pointing to parts) that allows the surgeon to laterally move the incision tool and blade between the first point and second point, and it can be inferred from the pivot pin and pin guide path as seen in the annotated Fig. 37 above that the distance between the first point and second point is greater than the inner diameter of the guide tube 1670),
wherein forming the incision includes the step of moving the handle in the second direction (moving the handle laterally in the second direction causes the tip of the blade to move to the second point to further extend the incision).
Regarding claim 17, Sharifi-Mehr discloses the limitations of claim 11, and further discloses wherein the cutting apparatus comprises:
a housing (1623, Fig. 34-37) defining a scalpel guide (housing 1623 of the cutting apparatus has grooves (part not labeled in original document – see annotated Fig. 37 above pointing to part) that act as a scalpel guide that engage with longitudinal slots (Fig. 33 part 1679) of guide tube 1670, which allows for control of the angulation/rotation of the scalpel (paragraph 82));
the scalpel (1610) longer than a length of the housing (as seen in Fig. 33-37) and having a movement path constrained by the scalpel guide (the scalpel is coupled to the scalpel guide and therefore the movement path is constrained by the scalpel guide when engaged with the longitudinal slots 1679 of guide tube 1670);
the handle (1625) coupled to a proximal end (1614, Fig. 34) of the scalpel; and
a blade holder (1628, Fig. 34) at a distal end (1618, Fig. 34) of the scalpel.
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.
Claims 2, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi-Mehr in view of US20160278875 Crawford et al. (hereinafter Crawford ‘875).
Regarding claim 2, Sharifi-Mehr discloses the limitations of claim 1. Sharifi-Mehr discloses a housing (1623, Fig. 34-37) of the cutting apparatus having grooves (part not labeled in original document – see annotated Fig. 37 above pointing to part).
Sharifi-Mehr is silent on rotating the cutting apparatus in the guide tube such that a ball of the guide tube moves from a first groove of the housing of the cutting apparatus to a second groove of the housing of the cutting apparatus.
However, Crawford ‘875 teaches a robotic surgical system and methods for its use that comprises advancing an instrument assembly (802, Fig. 8a-b) into a guide tube (606, Fig. 6-7c, 9a-10b) (paragraph 77) wherein the instrument assembly (802) has a housing having grooves (808, Fig. 8a-c, 10a-b) and rotating the instrument assembly (802) in the guide tube (606) such that a ball (1004, Fig. 10a-b) of the guide tube (606) moves from a first groove of the housing of the instrument assembly to a second groove of the housing of the instrument assembly (Fig. 10a-b, paragraph 75-81).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharifi-Mehr with the teachings of Crawford ‘875 in order to restrict rotational movement of the instrument assembly while also allowing the rotational position of the instrument to be adjusted as disclosed by Crawford ‘875 (paragraph 78-79).
Regarding claim 12, Sharifi-Mehr discloses the limitations of claim 11. Sharifi-Mehr discloses a housing (1623, Fig. 34-37) of the cutting apparatus having grooves (part not labeled in original document – see annotated Fig. 37 above pointing to part).
Sharifi-Mehr is silent on rotating the cutting apparatus in the guide tube such that a ball of the guide tube moves from a first groove of the housing of the cutting apparatus to a second groove of the housing of the cutting apparatus.
However, Crawford ‘875 teaches a robotic surgical system and methods for its use that comprises advancing an instrument assembly (802, Fig. 8a-b) into a guide tube (606, Fig. 6-7c, 9a-10b) (paragraph 77) wherein the instrument assembly (802) has a housing having grooves (808, Fig. 8a-c, 10a-b) and rotating the instrument assembly (802) in the guide tube (606) such that a ball (1004, Fig. 10a-b) of the guide tube (606) moves from a first groove of the housing of the instrument assembly to a second groove of the housing of the instrument assembly (Fig. 10a-b, paragraph 75-81).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharifi-Mehr with the teachings of Crawford ‘875 in order to restrict rotational movement of the instrument assembly while also allowing the rotational position of the instrument to be adjusted as disclosed by Crawford ‘875 (paragraph 78-79).
Claims 5-6, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi-Mehr in view of US 6757977 Dambal et al. (hereinafter Dambal).
Regarding claim 5, Sharifi-Mehr discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses wherein moving the handle to a first position includes pivoting a scalpel arm of the cutting apparatus within a housing of the cutting apparatus (pivoting the handle 1625 to control the angulation of the cutting apparatus also pivots a scalpel arm (1620, Fig. 34) of the cutting apparatus as the scalpel arm 1620 is part of the cutting apparatus and moving the cutting apparatus moves the scalpel arm 1620 as a whole).
Sharifi-Mehr is silent on wherein unlocking the cutting apparatus includes sliding a lock tab from a first position in which a lock tab is disposed within a catch in the housing to a second position in which the lock tab is outside of the catch.
However, Dambal teaches a surgical scalpel with a locking mechanism (abstract, col. 1 line 5-10) wherein unlocking the locking mechanism includes sliding a lock tab (32, Fig. 3, 6) from a first position in which a lock tab is disposed within a catch (22, Fig. 2) in the housing (1, Fig. 1-2) to a second position in which the lock tab is outside of the catch (col. 5 line 8-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharifi-Mehr with the teachings of Dambal in order to reduce the risk of any accidental injury and ensure complete safety of the operator as disclosed by Dambal (col. 2 line 24-28, col. 4 line 48-61).
Regarding claim 6, Sharifi-Mehr discloses the limitations of claim 1. Sharifi-Mehr discloses that the system may include a locking mechanism to allow the surgeon to fix the trajectory and/or rotational orientation of the incision tool within the guide tube (paragraph 84). However, Sharifi-Mehr is silent on wherein the handle further comprises a lock configured to selectively resist movement of the scalpel in relation to a housing of the cutting apparatus.
However, Dambal teaches a surgical scalpel with a locking mechanism (abstract, col. 1 line 5-10) wherein the handle (housing 1 of Fig. 1 also constitutes as the handle as it is where the user holds and handles the surgical scalpel) further comprises a lock (col. 4 line 48-61, col. 5 line 8-19, the engagement of a lock tab (32, Fig. 3, 6) with slots (22, Fig. 22) on handle 1 comprises the locking mechanism) to selectively resist movement of the scalpel in relation to a housing (1) of the cutting apparatus col. 4 line 48-61, col. 5 line 8-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharifi-Mehr with the teachings of Dambal in order to reduce the risk of any accidental injury and ensure complete safety of the operator as disclosed by Dambal (col. 2 line 24-28, col. 4 line 48-61).
Regarding claim 15, Sharifi-Mehr discloses the limitations of claim 11, and further discloses wherein moving the handle to a first position includes pivoting a scalpel arm of the cutting apparatus within a housing of the cutting apparatus (pivoting the handle 1625 to control the angulation of the cutting apparatus also pivots a scalpel arm (1620, Fig. 34) of the cutting apparatus as the scalpel arm 1620 is part of the cutting apparatus and moving the cutting apparatus moves the scalpel arm 1620 as a whole).
Sharifi-Mehr is silent on wherein unlocking the cutting apparatus includes sliding a lock tab from a first position in which a lock tab is disposed within a catch in the housing to a second position in which the lock tab is outside of the catch.
However, Dambal teaches a surgical scalpel with a locking mechanism (abstract, col. 1 line 5-10) wherein unlocking the locking mechanism includes sliding a lock tab (32, Fig. 3, 6) from a first position in which a lock tab is disposed within a catch (22, Fig. 2) in the housing (1, Fig. 1-2) to a second position in which the lock tab is outside of the catch (col. 5 line 8-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharifi-Mehr with the teachings of Dambal in order to reduce the risk of any accidental injury and ensure complete safety of the operator as disclosed by Dambal (col. 2 line 24-28, col. 4 line 48-61).
Regarding claim 16, Sharifi-Mehr discloses the limitations of claim 11. Sharifi-Mehr discloses that the system may include a locking mechanism to allow the surgeon to fix the trajectory and/or rotational orientation of the incision tool within the guide tube (paragraph 84). However, Sharifi-Mehr is silent on wherein the handle further comprises a lock configured to selectively resist movement of the scalpel in relation to a housing of the cutting apparatus.
However, Dambal teaches a surgical scalpel with a locking mechanism (abstract, col. 1 line 5-10) wherein the handle (housing 1 of Fig. 1 also constitutes as the handle as it is where the user holds and handles the surgical scalpel) further comprises a lock (col. 4 line 48-61, col. 5 line 8-19, the engagement of a lock tab (32, Fig. 3, 6) with slots (22, Fig. 22) on handle 1 comprises the locking mechanism) to selectively resist movement of the scalpel in relation to a housing (1) of the cutting apparatus col. 4 line 48-61, col. 5 line 8-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharifi-Mehr with the teachings of Dambal in order to reduce the risk of any accidental injury and ensure complete safety of the operator as disclosed by Dambal (col. 2 line 24-28, col. 4 line 48-61).
Claims 8, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi-Mehr in view of US 20040243159 Shiuey.
Regarding claim 8, Sharifi-Mehr discloses the limitations of claim 7, and further discloses,
wherein the swing scalpel pivots about only a single pivot point (the pivot pin as seen in annotated Fig. 37 above is the single pivot point);
wherein the blade holder is the sole blade holder of the cutting apparatus (blade holder 1628 is the sole blade holder of the cutting apparatus as seen in Fig. 34);
wherein the scalpel is unitary (as seen in Fig. 34); and
wherein the handle is fixed to the scalpel and rotates about the pivot point (as seen in Fig. 34, and in annotated Fig. 37, handle 1625 allows surgeon to move the incision tool and control the angulation of the tool for the angle of insertion about the pivot point).
Sharifi-Mehr is silent on wherein the apparatus is configured such that the swing scalpel moves relative to the housing when forming an incision.
However, Shiuey teaches a surgical cutting instrument (abstract, Fig. 1-5a) that comprises a swing scalpel (10), a housing (20) defining a scalpel guide (22) (paragraph 61-65), and wherein the swing scalpel moves relative to the housing when forming an incision (as seen in Fig. 3, 5a, paragraph 28, 61-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharifi-Mehr with the teachings of Shiuey in order to allow the swing scalpel to effectively oscillate or swing relative to the housing without the housing moving along with it while still allowing the scalpel guide to guide the swing scalpel and limit its maximum angular movement as disclosed by Shiuey (paragraph 63-64).
Regarding claim 18, Sharifi-Mehr discloses the limitations of claim 17, and further discloses,
wherein the scalpel pivots about only a single pivot point (the pivot pin as seen in annotated Fig. 37 above is the single pivot point);
wherein the blade holder is the sole blade holder of the cutting apparatus (blade holder 1628 is the sole blade holder of the cutting apparatus as seen in Fig. 34);
wherein the scalpel is unitary (as seen in Fig. 34); and
wherein the handle is fixed to the scalpel and rotates about the pivot point (as seen in Fig. 34, and in annotated Fig. 37, handle 1625 allows surgeon to move the incision tool and control the angulation of the tool for the angle of insertion about the pivot point).
Sharifi-Mehr is silent on wherein the apparatus is configured such that the scalpel moves relative to the housing when forming an incision.
However, Shiuey teaches a surgical cutting instrument (abstract, Fig. 1-5a) that comprises a scalpel (10), a housing (20) defining a scalpel guide (22) (paragraph 61-65), and wherein the scalpel moves relative to the housing when forming an incision (as seen in Fig. 3, 5a, paragraph 28, 61-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharifi-Mehr with the teachings of Shiuey in order to allow the scalpel to effectively oscillate or swing relative to the housing without the housing moving along with it while still allowing the scalpel guide to guide the scalpel and limit its maximum angular movement as disclosed by Shiuey (paragraph 63-64).
Claim 10, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi-Mehr in view of US 20130345718 Crawford et al. (hereinafter Crawford ‘718).
Regarding claim 10, Sharifi-Mehr discloses the limitations of claim 7, and further discloses wherein inserting a cutting apparatus into a guide tube includes:
inserting the housing in the guide tube (paragraph 81-83, Fig. 33, 36-37).
Sharifi-Mehr is silent on wherein the housing further comprises a housing lip disposed at a proximal end of the housing such that when the housing is inserted in the guide tube, the housing lip abuts a proximal end of the guide tube, thereby resisting further distal movement of the housing through the guide tube.
However, Crawford ‘718 teaches a robotic surgical system and methods for its use that comprises advancing a surgical instrument (35, Fig. 1) through a guide tube (50, Fig. 1, 17a-b), the surgical instrument comprising a lip (stop mechanism 52, Fig. 17a-b) at a proximal end that is configured to prevent the surgical instrument from advancing when it reaches a predetermined amount of protrusion (paragraph 161).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharifi-Mehr with the teachings of Crawford ‘718 in order to prevent the cutting apparatus from advancing too far through the guide tube and to have it reach a predetermined amount of protrusion as disclosed by Crawford ‘718 (paragraph 161).
Regarding claim 20, Sharifi-Mehr discloses the limitations of claim 17, and further discloses wherein inserting a cutting apparatus into a guide tube includes:
inserting the housing in the guide tube (paragraph 81-83, Fig. 33, 36-37).
Sharifi-Mehr is silent on wherein the housing further comprises a housing lip disposed at a proximal end of the housing such that when the housing is inserted in the guide tube, the housing lip abuts a proximal end of the guide tube, thereby resisting further distal movement of the housing through the guide tube.
However, Crawford ‘718 teaches a robotic surgical system and methods for its use that comprises advancing a surgical instrument (35, Fig. 1) through a guide tube (50, Fig. 1, 17a-b), the surgical instrument comprising a lip (stop mechanism 52, Fig. 17a-b) at a proximal end that is configured to prevent the surgical instrument from advancing when it reaches a predetermined amount of protrusion (paragraph 161).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharifi-Mehr with the teachings of Crawford ‘718 in order to prevent the cutting apparatus from advancing too far through the guide tube and to have it reach a predetermined amount of protrusion as disclosed by Crawford ‘718 (paragraph 161).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 9, 14, and 19 are 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No prior art references alone or in combination with other references teaches each and every limitation of the independent claims. The closest art of record is Sharifi-Mehr.
Regarding claim 4, Sharifi-Mehr discloses the limitations of claim 1. However, Sharifi-Mehr does not disclose wherein moving the handle to a first position includes: overcoming at least one bias force that urges the tip of the blade toward a starting position.
Regarding claim 9, Sharifi-Mehr discloses the limitations of claim 7. However, Sharifi-Mehr does not disclose the cutting apparatus further comprises: a biaser configured to bias the scalpel toward a starting position; the biaser includes at least two springs; and wherein, while in the starting position, the swing scalpel is parallel with a length of the housing.
Regarding claim 14, Sharifi-Mehr discloses the limitations of claim 11. However, Sharifi-Mehr does not disclose wherein moving the handle to a first position includes: overcoming at least one bias force that urges the tip of the blade toward a starting position.
Regarding claim 19, Sharifi-Mehr discloses the limitations of claim 17. However, Sharifi-Mehr does not disclose the cutting apparatus further comprises: a biaser configured to bias the scalpel toward a starting position; the biaser includes at least two springs; and wherein, while in the starting position, the swing scalpel is parallel with a length of the housing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KHOA TAN LE whose telephone number is (703)756-1252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4:30pm.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at 571-272-4696. 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.
/KHOA TAN LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 /MOHAMED G GABR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
