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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12-12-2025 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swain (420,125).
Regarding claim 1, Swain discloses a gripping device (figs 1-3) comprising:
a first arm; a second arm opposing at least a portion of the first arm and having a proximal end and a distal end operable to shift toward the first arm (member A, left and right portions); and
a tip (member C) shiftably coupled to the distal end of the second arm so that the tip is operable to longitudinally shift between a retracted position in which the tip is relatively closer to the proximal end of the second arm and an extended position in which the tip is relatively farther from the proximal end of the second arm (figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 2, Swain discloses the distal end of the second arm includes a slot (member B), and the tip comprises a protruding member (member D) that extends into the slot of the distal end of the second arm.
Regarding claim 3, Swain discloses the tip includes a tab (member E) that maintains the protruding member within the slot.
Regarding claim 4, Swain discloses the distal end of the second arm includes an outer surface, the protruding member extends through the slot to the outer surface, and the tab includes a bottom surface that faces the outer surface of the distal end of the second arm and a top surface opposite to the bottom surface that faces away from the outer surface of the distal end of the second arm (figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 5, Swain discloses the top surface of the tab comprises a gripping structure (outside portion of member E).
Regarding claim 7, Swain discloses the second arm is biased toward a position at a distance from the first arm (lines 20-50).
Regarding claim 8, Francis discloses the first arm includes a proximal end attached to the proximal end of the second arm (figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 9, Francis discloses the tip is a second tip, and the first arm comprises a proximal end and a distal end, further comprising a first tip shiftably coupled to the distal end of the first arm so that the first tip is operable to longitudinally shift between a retracted position in which the first tip is relatively closer to the proximal end of the first arm and an extended position in which the first tip is relatively farther from the proximal end of the first arm (figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 10, Francis discloses a gripping device comprising: a first arm having a proximal end and a distal end; a second arm having a proximal end fixed relative to the proximal end of the first arm and a distal end spaced apart from and opposing the distal end of the first arm, the distal end of the second arm being operable to shift toward the distal end of the first arm (member A);
a first tip shiftably coupled to the distal end of the first arm so that the first tip is operable to longitudinally shift between a retracted position in which the first tip is relatively closer to the proximal end of the first arm and an extended position in which the first tip is relatively farther from the proximal end of the first arm; and a second tip shiftably coupled to the distal end of the second arm so that the second tip is operable to longitudinally shift between a retracted position in which the second tip is relatively closer to the proximal end of the second arm and an extended position in which the second tip is relatively farther from the proximal end of the second arm (member C).
Regarding claim 11, Francis discloses the distal end of the first arm includes a slot, and the first tip comprises a protruding member (member D) that extends into the slot (member B) of the distal end of the first arm and a tab (member E) that maintains the protruding member within the slot.
Regarding claim 12, Francis discloses the distal end of the second arm includes a slot, and the second tip comprises a protruding member that extends into the slot of the distal end of the second arm and a tab that maintains the protruding member of the second tip within the slot of the distal end of the second arm (figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 13, Francis discloses the tab of the first tip includes an inner surface facing a direction toward the second arm and an outer surface facing away from the inner surface and including a gripping structure (outside portion of member E).
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swain (420,125) as applied to claims 5 and 13 above, and further in view of Cho (2004/0145201).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Francis teaches all limitations except the gripping structure comprises a concave surface.
Cho teaches a gripping device (fig 5) the gripping structure (member 29) comprises a concave surface (member 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the gripping structure of Francis by using the concave surface as taught by Cho in order to ergonomically accommodate the fingers which help to slide the tip easier.
Regarding claim 15, the modified structure Francis-Cho discloses the tab of the second tip includes an inner surface facing a direction toward the first arm and an outer surface facing away from the inner surface of the second tip and including a gripping structure (Francis, figs 1-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: none of the prior art in record discloses a device with 3 prongs having a tip shiftably connect to a one arm and slidable relatively to the one arm.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm.
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, KHOA D. HUYNH can be reached at (571)272-4888. 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.
BAO-THIEU L. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732