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
Applicant’s remarks filed April 20, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Applicant argues that D’Amelio fails to disclose the amended limitations of claim 1, particularly:
“a first gusset formed integrally with and extending from the first outer perimeter of said first arm”; and
“a second gusset formed integrally with and extending outwards from the second outer perimeter of said second arm.”
Applicant contends that D’Amelio’s lips, U-shaped lips, and seams are formed by the assembly of separate cover members around a structural frame and therefore are not “gussets formed integrally with” the arms as claimed. Applicant further argues that the features of D’Amelio primarily function as conduits for wires rather than structural reinforcements. These arguments are not persuasive.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning unless the specification provides a special definition. See MPEP § 2111. As amended, claim 1 recites a “gusset” that is “formed integrally with and extending from” the outer perimeter of an arm. However, claim 1 does not recite:
a particular cross-sectional shape,
a unitary or one-piece manufacturing process,
a specific taper,
an I-beam configuration,
a protrusion height distribution,
a particular material continuity between the arm and gusset, or
a structural-function limitation such as increasing rigidity.
The specification discusses exemplary embodiments in which ridges may provide additional rigidity, may taper, and may protrude farther near the pivot point. However, those features are not recited in claim 1 and therefore are not read into the claim. See MPEP § 2111.01.
D’Amelio discloses arm structures in which cover members, lips, and U-shaped lips surround and wrap along perimeter portions of the arms and form outward peripheral structural features once assembled. See, e.g., D’Amelio Figures 3–4 and paragraphs [0038], [0042], [0047]–[0048]. The identified elements, including outer cover members, inner cover members, lips, and seams, are integrated into the final arm structure and extend along outer edge regions of the arms. Under a broad but reasonable interpretation, these assembled perimeter-wrapping protruding structures read on the claimed “gusset” limitations.
Applicant’s argument that D’Amelio’s features are formed from separate pieces is not controlling because claim 1 does not expressly require that the gusset and arm be formed as a single monolithic piece or by a single manufacturing operation. The phrase “formed integrally with” is reasonably interpreted, in the context of the claim as presently drafted, as requiring that the gusset be part of the arm structure rather than a detachable independent component. In D’Amelio, the cover/lip structures are not separate detachable gusset members added externally after the arm is completed; rather, they are structural portions of the assembled arm body.
Applicant further argues that D’Amelio’s cover members serve to house conductive wires and therefore do not qualify as gussets. This argument is also unpersuasive. Claim 1 does not exclude a structure from being a gusset merely because it also performs another function. A prior-art structure may satisfy a claimed structural limitation even if the reference emphasizes a different purpose or additional function. Thus, the fact that D’Amelio’s cover members define passageways for wires does not negate that the perimeter lips/seams also form structural protrusions extending along the outer perimeter of the arms.
Applicant’s reliance on paragraph [0042] and Figure 9 of the present application is acknowledged. However, those portions of the specification describe particular embodiments and benefits, such as increased rigidity, tapering, and reinforcement near the pivot point. Since those additional structural details are not recited in claim 1, they do not limit the broadest reasonable interpretation of “gusset” as presently claimed.
Accordingly, D’Amelio is still considered to disclose, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited:
first arm with a first outer perimeter,
second arm with a second outer perimeter,
first and second perimeter-extending gusset structures,
pivot point, and
engagement portion with complementary engagement features.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by D’Amelio is maintained.
Claims 2-9 and 11-13, Applicant has not presented separate arguments responsive to the rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over D’Amelio in view of Morales beyond the arguments directed to claim 1. Since the rejection of claim 1 is maintained, and Applicant has not persuasively addressed the teachings of Morales or the articulated reason to combine, the rejection of claims 5 and 6 is maintained.
Claims 7–8 and 11–13, Applicant has not presented separate substantive arguments for claims 7–8 and 11–13 apart from the arguments directed to claim 1. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the prior Office action, the rejections of claims 7–8 and 11–13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1–6, 9, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D’Amelio et al. (US 2009/0182330 A1).
Regarding claim 1, D’Amelio et al. disclose a forceps device comprising:
a first arm having a first outer perimeter and comprising a functional end and an operational end; and a first gusset formed integrally with and extending from the first outer perimeter of said first arm
as shown by arm structure 27 with cover structures 22 and 24 extending along the perimeter region of the arm, see at least Figs. 3–4 and paragraphs [0038], [0042], [0047]–[0048];
a second arm having a second outer perimeter and comprising a functional end and an operational end; and a second gusset formed integrally with and extending outwards from the second outer perimeter of said second arm
as shown by arm structure 7 with cover structures 14 and 2 extending along the perimeter region of the arm, see at least Figs. 3–4 and paragraphs [0038], [0042], [0047]–[0048];
a pivot point connecting said first arm to said second arm, pivot 43; and
an engagement portion comprising a plurality of engagement features on said first arm and complementary opposing features on said second arm, said complementary opposing features configured to engage with said plurality of engagement features
as shown by engagement features 15 and 35, including protrusions and complementary recesses/indentations, see Figs. 1, 3 and paragraph [0029].
As discussed above in the Response to Arguments, the perimeter lip, U-shaped lip, and seam structures of D’Amelio are considered to be integrated structural features of the completed arm assemblies and therefore meet the “formed integrally with” gusset limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, D’Amelio et al. disclose the forceps device of claim 1, wherein said pivot point 43 enables the first arm to pivot about said pivot point in relation to the second arm.
Regarding claim 3, D’Amelio et al. disclose the forceps device of claim 1, wherein said engagement features of said first arm comprise protruding teeth 35a and said complementary opposing features of said second arm comprise indentations 15b. See paragraph [0029].
Regarding claim 4, D’Amelio et al. disclose the forceps device of claim 3, wherein said first arm further comprises a first extending component 35 shaped to include said engagement features 35a and said second arm further comprises a second extending component 15 shaped to include said complementary opposing features 15a to engage with said engagement features.
Regarding claim 5, D’Amelio et al. disclose the forceps device of claim 4, wherein said complementary opposing features comprise indentations along the entire length of said second extending component. See Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 6, D’Amelio et al. disclose the forceps device of claim 4, wherein said engagement features comprise teeth along the entire length of said first extending component. See Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 9, D’Amelio et al. disclose the forceps device of claim 1, wherein said engagement features engage with said complementary opposing features in a direction orthogonal to a plane in which said first and second arms move during operation. See Figs. 1 and 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Amelio et al. in view of Morales (US 2019/0343540 A1).
As set forth above, D’Amelio discloses the base limitations of claim 1 and the related extending components and engagement structures of claims 4–6. To the extent D’Amelio is considered not to clearly disclose teeth and/or indentations along the entire length of the corresponding extending components, Morales teaches a similar forceps/needle holder device comprising locking portions with teeth extending along the length of the locking component. See, e.g., Morales Figs. 1–2, 4 and paragraphs [0065], [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 D’Amelio’s engagement structure to include teeth and corresponding indentations along the entire length of the extending components as taught by Morales in order to provide improved engagement and gripping/locking force between the cooperating arm structures. See Morales paragraph [0069].
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Amelio et al.
Regarding claim 7, D’Amelio et al. fail to expressly disclose that the protruding teeth are angled to correspond with angled inner walls of the indentations at 5° to 10° from a plane orthogonal to the plane in which the arms move during operation.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide complementary angled tooth and indentation faces within the claimed range as a matter of routine optimization of known locking geometry to obtain secure engagement while still permitting intended movement during actuation. Selection of a workable angle within a narrow range that yields predictable mechanical interaction would have been an obvious matter of design choice absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 8, D’Amelio et al. fail to expressly disclose that the first and second extending components have a thickness of 3 mm to 6 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dimension the extending components within a workable range, including 3 mm to 6 mm, in order to provide sufficient strength and permit formation of the engagement teeth or indentations with suitable depth and durability. The claimed range is considered a result-effective variable and routine optimization of such dimensional parameters would have yielded predictable results.
Claims 11–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Amelio et al.
D’Amelio discloses arm-cover structures formed from insulated moldable material. See paragraph [0028]. Although D’Amelio does not expressly identify PTFE or polyacrylamide, such materials were well known in the art as insulative and moldable materials suitable for similar forceps components.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use PTFE or polyacrylamide materials for the relevant forceps structures of D’Amelio in order to provide moldability and electrical insulation, thereby meeting the limitations of claims 11–13.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as being unpatentable over D’Amelio et al.
Regarding claim 23, D’Amelio et al. disclose the forceps device of claim 1, wherein each of said first gusset and said second gusset protrude farthest from said first arm and said second arm, respectively, near said pivot point. As shown in D’Amelio Figures 3 and 4, the identified perimeter cover/lip structures surrounding the arm assemblies are present in the region proximate the pivot and define the most pronounced perimeter wrapping structure in that region where the arm assemblies are joined and structurally built up. The lips/U-shaped lips and corresponding assembled seam regions adjacent the pivot area protrude from the respective arm bodies and are at least reasonably interpreted as protruding farthest near the pivot point under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Alternatively, and to the extent the relative protrusion profile is not expressly and unequivocally shown to be “farthest” near the pivot in D’Amelio, claim 23 is rejected in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over D’Amelio alone. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure any perimeter ridge or gusset-like structure (cover members of D’Amelio) of the arm to protrude more in the region near the pivot point, where stresses associated with opening, closing, and twisting of the arms are concentrated, in order to provide increased local support and strength while permitting reduction of material away from the pivot. Such a modification would have been a predictable design choice involving routine optimization of a known structural parameter, namely localized reinforcement in a known high-stress area.
Regarding claim 24, D’Amelio et al. disclose the forceps device of claim 1, wherein said first gusset and said second gusset are configured to increase the structural integrity of said first arm and said second arm.
The perimeter cover/lip structures of D’Amelio surround and reinforce edge regions of the arm assemblies and therefore inherently contribute to the overall rigidity and structural support of the arms once assembled. A structural feature need not be described in the reference using the same terminology as the claim if the prior-art structure is capable of performing the recited function or is configured in a manner that would provide the recited result. Here, the assembled perimeter structures of D’Amelio materially add structure at the arm periphery and thus are reasonably considered configured to increase structural integrity.
Alternatively, and to the extent Applicant contends that D’Amelio does not expressly disclose this functional characteristic, claim 24 is rejected in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over D’Amelio alone. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that providing perimeter-extending structural features along the arms would increase structural integrity by reinforcing the arm assemblies, especially in regions subject to repeated mechanical loading. The recited functional result therefore would have been an inherent and predictable consequence of the known arm structure disclosed by D’Amelio.
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 TAN-UYEN THI HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4696. The examiner can normally be reached Normal Schedule M-F Between 7:00 am and 4:00 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, TAN-UYEN T HO can be reached at 7034745263. 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.
/TAN-UYEN T HO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights