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 .
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 17-20 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.
With respect to claim 17, the claim recites “a surface complimentary in angulation to the sliding surface”. This limitation is unclear as the phrase “complimentary in angulation” does not have a commonly accepted meaning in the art and is not defined or used in the specification in a manner which would inform one of skill as to its scope.
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) 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pre-Grant Publication 2010/0249510 to Yamada (Yamada hereinafter) in view of US Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0326294 to Kato et al. (Kato).
Regarding claim 9, Yamada teaches a clamp (30, see Fig. 9), comprising: a fixed portion (36) comprising: a contact surface (14b) arranged in a central space, a movable portion (17) that faces the fixed portion and disposed above the fixed portion; a curved portion (13) that curves from a first end of the fixed portion to a first end of the movable portion, the curved portion supporting the movable portion such that the movable portion is displaceable in the first direction and a second direction opposite the first direction with elastic deformation; a pressing portion (35) that extends from the movable portion in a direction toward the fixed portion, the pressing portion configured to press and close a tube disposed on the contact surface when the movable portion is pressed and further having first and second protrusion portions connected to the claimed points on the movable portion; and a standing portion (18) that extends upward from a second end of the fixed portion, faces the curved portion, and comprises: a lock mechanism (18b) configured to maintain the movable portion when the movable portion is in a pressed state; and a lateral displacement prevention mechanism (18c) that prevents a sidewall deformation of the movable portion when the movable portion is pressed.
Yamada does not teach a pair of sidewalls that protrude from side portions of the fixed portion in a wall shape, respectively, and are configured to prevent lateral displacement of the tube. Kato teaches another tube clamp generally, and particularly teaches sidewalls (8) for limiting lateral displacement. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide sidewalls as taught by Kato to the clamp of Yamada in order to prevent lateral motion of the movable portion. Thus provided, the pressing portion of Yamada would slot in between the sidewalls when closed.
Regarding claim 10, Yamada teaches that the standing portion further comprises: an incline (see “Taper” in reproduction of Fig. 1 below for which an analogous surface is present in Fig. 9) portion configured to guide the movable portion to an inner side of the standing portion while interfacing with a tip (17a) of the movable portion, wherein the lateral displacement mechanism comprises a first structure (18c) disposed on the inclined portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
236
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Yamada teaches a guide protrusion matched with a guide recess (18c) arranged on the standing portion. Switching the places of those two elements would constitute the mere rearrangement of parts with no change in their function and would result in the invention of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, in the combination, a first structure analogous to the protrusion (17c) of Yamada would be present on the inclined portion (at 18c) of the standing portion.
Regarding claim 13, Yamada teaches a tapered (e.g. rounded) portion of the protrusion and a linear portion extending downward therefrom.
Regarding claim 14, Yamada teaches that a width of the tapered portion increases along the movement direction around the rounded ends to the linear portion.
Regarding claim 15, Yamada teaches curved column portions (13).
Regarding claim 16, Yamada teaches ridged portions (17d).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Claims 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the limitations of a clamp having a pressing portion, guide protrusion with an upper surface coplanar with an upper surface of a movable portion of the clamp, sidewalls, a standing portion with an inclined portion, hanging portion and a guide groove comprising a tapered portion and linear portion as in claim 1 and of a clamp having a sliding surface with a sliding surface at a second end of a movable portion and a standing portion with a lock mechanism, an inclined portion having a surface complimentary in angulation to the sliding surface and configured to guide the movable portion and a lateral displacement mechanism as claimed in claim 17 are not shown in or fairly suggested by the prior art in combination with the remaining limitations of those claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 7 November 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 112 of claims 17-20.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 9-16 have been considered and are not persuasive. As now discussed above, Yamada teaches an embodiment with multiple protruding portions (see Fig. 9) and therefore cannot be considered to teach away from such a configuration. Accordingly, the examiner maintains that claims 9-16 are unpatentable.
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 PHILIP E STIMPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a-4p.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at 571-270-1744. 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.
/PHILIP E STIMPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 4 March 2026