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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 18th, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The claims filed on September 18th, 2026, have been entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-18 remain pending in the Application. Applicant previously withdrew claims 8-18 from the Application. The claim amendments overcome the claim objection.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-7 under 102(a)(1) over Mumaw et al. (Pub. No. 2016/0367239) has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment made September 18th, 2026; specifically, Mumaw et al. does not teach the arc of about 180 degrees occurs in a vertical direction relative to the shaft when the actuator of the handle is facing down to curve in correspondence with a curve at a back of a mouth and pharynx.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 6-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ewers et al. (Pub. No. 2009/0125038) in view of Mumaw et al. (Pub. No. 2016/0367239).
Regarding claim 1, Ewers et al. discloses a clip application device (100; FIGs. 3A-4; [0067]) comprising:
a handle (102) including an actuator (112);
a shaft (104) extending from the handle (FIG. 3A: 104 extends from 102) and including an articulating portion (116); and
an end effector (110) extending distally of the articulating portion (FIG. 3A: 110 extends distally from 116), wherein:
the end effector is configured to apply at least one clip in response to manual actuation of the actuator ([0073] 110 applies the clip 120 through actuation by 112),
the articulating portion is configured to pivot the end effector through an arc of about 180 degrees in relation to the shaft ([0073] 110 moves up to 180 degrees relative to 104) via an articulation adjustment knob, and
the arc of about 180 degrees occurs in a vertical direction relative to the shaft when the actuator of the handle is facing down to curve in correspondence with a curve at a back of a mouth and pharynx (FIGs. 3A-4: the arc A occurs in a vertical direction relative to 104 when 112 is facing down, and can curve in correspondence with a curve at a back of a mouth and pharynx).
Ewers et al. does not disclose the articulation adjustment knob.
Mumaw et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor of clip application devices (Abstract), and discloses a clip application device (2; [0059]; FIG. 1) comprising a handle (10) including an actuator (12), and an articulating portion (23), where an end effector (50) is configured to apply at least one clip in response to manual actuation of the actuator ([0090] when 12 is pulled, 50 manipulates 200 to apply surgical clip 220 to tissue), and the articulating portion is configured to pivot the end effector through an arc in relation to the shaft ([0062] manual adjustments of 14 cause 50 to pivot left and right relative to 20) via an articulation adjustment knob (14; [0062]; FIG. 1) for the purpose of allowing for multiple selective movements to separately actuate and articulate the end effector ([0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have separated the actuation and articulation movements present in Ewers et al. for the purpose of greater control over each individual motion, as taught by Mumaw et al., which would place an articulation adjustment knob 16 of Mumaw et al. on the handle 102 of Ewers et al. alongside the actuation mechanism 112.
Regarding claim 2, Ewers et al. as modified by Mumaw et al. further discloses the clip application device is a multi-fire clip applier that is configured to apply multiple clips in response to multiple manual actuations of the actuator (Ewers et al. [0080] 100 is used in the FIGs. 8A-9C, where multiple clips 120 are applied by multiple actuations of 112).
Regarding claim 3, Ewers et al. as modified by Mumaw et al. further discloses the articulation adjustment knob operatively coupled to the articulating portion (Ewers et al. [0073] 112 is operatively connected to 116, and the modification by Mumaw et al. would place the knob in the same coupling to control the arc) and configured to enable manual adjustment of the end effector's pivot through the arc of about 180 degrees in relation to the shaft (Ewers et al. [0073] the arc of 180 degrees is carried out by the actuation, which the modification by Mumaw et al. causes to be done by the knob).
Regarding claim 4, Ewers et al. as modified by Mumaw et al. further discloses manual adjustments of the articulation adjustment knob causes the articulating portion to pivot the end effector in relation to the shaft (Ewers et al. [0073] manual adjustments of 112 cause the arc, which the modification by Mumaw et al. causes to be done by the knob).
Regarding claim 6, Ewers et al. as modified by Mumaw et al. further discloses the articulation adjustment knob is movably coupled to the handle (Mumaw et al. FIG. 1: the knob rotates relative to the handle, and the modification to Ewers et al. would maintain this movable coupling).
Regarding claim 7, Ewers et al. as modified by Mumaw et al. further discloses the manual actuation of the actuator comprises squeezing the actuator (Ewers et al. FIG. 3A: the squeezing of 112 causes the actuation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RYAN MCGINNITY whose telephone number is (571)272-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-5:30 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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at 571-272-7134. 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.
/JAMES R MCGINNITY/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights