DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the handle of a hinge (claim 24) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-14, 16 and 18-24 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.
Regarding claim 1:
The claim recites the limitation "the user" in the final line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-5, 22 and 23 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 6:
The limitation is unclear because of the limitation “the body” in line 20. The limitation is unclear because several bodies have been established in the claim (see the first or second body established in lines 3 and 8) and it’s unclear which one this limitation refers to. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that his limitation refers to the first body however the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
Claims 7-12 and 21 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 6.
Regarding claim 8:
The claim limitation “a friction coupling” in line 2 is unclear. The limitation is unclear because of the earlier recitation of the limitation “a frictional coupling” in line 12 of claim 6 (on which this claim depends) which raises a question of if two friction couplings are required by the claim 8 or only one. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that only one friction coupling is required by the claim.
Regarding claim 13:
The claim recites the limitation "the distal end" in the line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14, 16, 18-20 and 24 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 13.
Regarding claim 18:
The limitation is unclear because of the limitation “the plates” in line 2. The limitation is unclear because several plates (first and second plates as established in lines 6 and 7) have been established in the claim 13 (on which this claim depends) and it’s unclear which one this limitation refers to. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that his limitation refers to the first and second plates however the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
Regarding claim 23:
The claim limitation “a user” in line 2 is unclear. The limitation is unclear because of the earlier recitation of the limitation “the user” in the final line of claim 1 (on which this claim depends) which raises a question of if two users are required by the claim 23 or only one. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that only one user is required by the claim.
The claim recites the limitation "single-handed operability" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 24:
The claim recites the limitation "the user" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14, 16 and 18-24 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.
Furthermore, the prior art of record does not teach “wherein the receiving end includes a tensioned pin and spring system that engages to fix the notched end into the receiving end when the device is in the closed position, the tensioned pin and spring system being oriented parallel to the guidewire” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 1;
the prior art of record does not teach “a receiving end on the second edge comprising a tensioned pin and spring system, the receiving end being positioned across from the protrusion and shaped to receive the protrusion into a locking arrangement; a button located on a first side face of the first body, comprising a rod that extends through the body on an axis that is parallel to the tensioned pin and spring system of the receiving end and may be coupled with the tensioned pin and spring system such that when the button is compressed, the tensioned pin and spring system releases the protrusion from the receiving end” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 6; and
the prior art of record does not teach “a clip comprised of a set of wings integrally coupled together by a bridge portion to form a substantially triangularly-shaped spring clamp that biases end portions of the set of wings towards each other into a closed position; wherein the set of wings is coupled to an inner surface of the first body and the second body having first ends that engage the first and second plates, respectively, and a set of jaws held together by the substantially triangularly-shaped spring clamp; wherein the clip is disposed, in entirety, radially within the substantially circular body” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 13.
Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant' s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant' s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 2/17/26, with respect to the non-final office action filed 10/16/25 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 rejections of the claims:
The applicant’s amendments to the claims are persuasive and for this reason the previous rejections are withdrawn. In regards to the rejection of claim 1 with Wysham, while the pin and spring system is known in the art, a combination with Wysham would not be possible for several reasons. First, due to the shape of the guide wire device. Second, the hinge in Wysham results in a force that biases the first and second bodies apart (see the abstract). Third, the reference teaches making the complete assembly from injection molding (see page 16, lines 1-10; page 21, line 25-30, page 26, lines 10). These teach away from adding the spring and pin assembly to replace the hinge in Wysham.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) claim rejections:
The applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous claim rejections and for this reason they are withdrawn. However, a new set of rejections have been made based on the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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 WESLEY HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3665. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am-5pm.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached on (571) 270-5246. 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.
/WESLEY G HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3783