DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-10, 12, 16-17, and 19 are amended. A complete action on the merits of pending claims 1-20 appears below.
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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 10/23/2025, 12/11/2025, 01/02/2026, and 02/23/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/18/2025 which are entered. With regards to the claim objections and 35 USC 112(b) rejections documented in the Non-Final Office Action sent on 08/22/2025, all are overcome through Applicant’s amendments and are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 should be amended to the following, “The medical clip according to claim 1, wherein the biasing element is configured in the form of a coil spring with at least one complete winding extending around a pivot axis, and the first clamping arm and the second clamping arm are pivotable on the pivot axis from the basic position into an abutment position in which the clamping arms are further apart from one another relative to the basic position.”
Claim 16 should be amended to the following, “The medical clip according to claim 1, wherein at least one of:
a) the connection perforation defines four connection perforation edges adjoining the female delimiting surfaces and wherein two connection perforation edges of the four connection perforation edges that are rotated against one another are beveled by the female torsional bevels; and
b) the connection portion defines four connection portion edges and wherein two connection portion edges of the four connection portion edges that are rotated against one another are beveled by the male torsional bevels.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-10, 12, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US Patent No. 5758420), in view of Qi (US PGPUB No. 20070032806 A1), and further in view of Propp (US PGPUB No. 20050145510 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
345
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Schmidt discloses, an aneurysm clip. Schmidt teaches, a medical clip (Figure 1, surgical clip (10); Col. 4, line 13-17) comprising:
a first clamping arm (Figure 1, second clamping jaw (40); Col. 4, line 20-29);
a second clamping arm (Figure 1, first clamping jaw (32); Col. 4, line 20-29);
a biasing element (Figure 1, spring (22); Col. 4, line 20-29) with a first end (See annotated Figure 1 above, (First end)) and a second end (See annotated Figure 1 above, (Second end)); and
a box lock (Figure 1, guide section (38) and guided element (30); Col. 4, line 20-29 and Col. 5, line 20-21),
the first clamping arm (second clamping jaw (40)) having a first clamping arm end (Figures 1 and 13, end at the proximal end of second clamping jaw (40)) connected to the first end (First end) of the biasing element (spring (22)) by way of a first connecting portion (Figures 1 and 13, second arm (34) or at least third straight length (48), second forceps-gripping elbow (50), and fourth straight length (52) of second flex section (36); Col. 4, line 20-29 and line 51-62),
the second clamping arm (first clamping jaw (32)) having a second clamping arm end (Figures 1 and 13, end at the proximal end of first clamping jaw (32)) connected to the second end (Second end) of the biasing element (spring (22)) by way of a second connecting portion (Figures 1 and 13, first arm (26) or at least a first straight length (42), first forceps gripping elbow (44), and second straight length (46) of first flex section (28); Col. 4, line 20-29 and line 30-39),
the box lock (guide section (38) and guided element (30)) having a connection perforation (Figure 2, guide section (38)) arranged or formed as an enclosed through opening (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of “enclosed”, guide section (38) as seen in Figure 2 is indeed formed as an enclosed through opening for guided element (30) to pass through, given that “enclosed” is interpreted as “an area or object that is surrounded, shut in, or confined on one or more sides by a physical barrier”) on the first connecting portion (Figure 13; Col. 5, line 13-21) and a connection portion (Figures 1-2 and 13, guided element (30)) comprised by the second connecting portion and passing through the connection perforation (Figure 2; Col. 5, line 8-12),
the first clamping arm (second clamping jaw (40)) and the second clamping arm (first clamping jaw (32)) being movable toward one another along a first direction (Figure 1, direction running parallel/along longitudinal clip axis (24)) to a basic position of the medical clip (clip (10)) and movable away from one another along the first direction (direction running parallel/along longitudinal clip axis (24); Figure 13) against an action of the biasing element (spring (22)) from the basic position into an opening position (Col. 5, line 44-51),
two female delimiting surfaces (See annotated Figure 2 below, (Female delimiting surfaces)) facing toward one another being formed at the connection perforation (As seen in the Figure, clearly the (Female delimiting surfaces) are facing one another and being formed at guide section (38)), and
two male delimiting surfaces (See annotated Figure 2 below, (Male delimiting surfaces)) facing away from one another and toward the female delimiting surfaces being formed on the connection portion (As seen in the Figure, clearly the (Male delimiting surfaces) are facing away from one another and toward the (Female delimiting surfaces) and being formed at guided element (30) which includes turn (54) as seen in Figure 2 (Col. 5, line 9-10)).
Schmidt fails to teach, the first clamping arm comprises a transverse bend located between the first clamping arm end and a free end of the first clamping arm, and the second clamping arm comprises a transverse bend located between the second clamping arm end and a free end of the second clamping arm, wherein the transverse bend of the first clamping arm and the transverse bend of the second clamping arm each extend in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction; and at least one of: the female delimiting surfaces each being provided with a female torsional bevel; and the male delimiting surfaces each being provided with a male torsional bevel.
Qi discloses, an aneurysm clip. Qi teaches, the clip comprising a first clip bar and a second clip bar that are attached to each other in a biased manner via a spring device (Figure 1, first clip bar (5), second clip bar (6), spring device (7); Paragraph [0037]), a first clip arm that extends perpendicularly from the second clip bar, and a second clip arm that extends perpendicularly from the first clip bar (Figure 1, first clip arm (1) extends perpendicularly from half slip ring (9) on second clip bar (6), second clip arm (2) extends perpendicularly from half slip ring (8) on first clip bar (5); Paragraph [0037]), wherein the plane defined by the clip arms is perpendicular to the planes defined by the clip bars (Paragraphs [0013] and [0037]), thereby providing transverse bends (or perpendicular extensions) of the clamping arms located between the connecting/bar ends and the free ends that extend in a direction perpendicular to the primary opening/closing direction of the arms.
Propp discloses, surgical instruments such as needle holders, forceps, hemostats, clamps, and occluders which incorporate a precision box hinge. Propp teaches in the prior art of Figure 2 (box hinge, which includes female and male delimiting surfaces), female delimiting surfaces each being provided with a female torsional bevel; and male delimiting surfaces each being provided with a male torsional bevel (Paragraph [0003]; see also Figures 5-8 and Paragraphs [0008]-[0010] disclosing a smooth, step-free cooperative transitions and bevel-like continuous cross-sections on the delimiting surfaces of the slot/perforation and the inserted portion to eliminate snag points and enable uninterrupted relative movement).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to apply the perpendicular transverse bend configuration of Qi to the aneurysm clip of Schmidt, and to further apply the torsional bevels of Propp to the box lock of the resulting modified Schmidt clip, as all the references and the claimed invention are directed to surgical grasping or holding instruments used to manipulate, secure, or occlude tissues and materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aneurysm clip of Schmidt by incorporating the transverse bends of the clamping arms that extend perpendicular to the first (opening/closing) direction as taught by Qi, and to further apply the female and/or male torsional bevels of Propp to the female and male delimiting surfaces of the box lock in the modified Schmidt clip, as such a modification would have been predictable, namely, the perpendicular arm geometry enables the aneurysm clip to enable effective clipping of the cyst at the root while accommodating vessel wall morphology (see Qi, Paragraphs [0004]-[0006], [0013], and [0037]). Furthermore, to eliminate edge collisions, reduce friction/jamming during relative movement, and ensure smooth, snag-free operation (see Propp, Paragraphs [0003], [0005]-[0006], and [0008]). One of ordinary skill would therefore have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed clip with no more than routine skill, producing smooth rotation, reduced friction, prevention of point-edge contact, and improved reliability/performance in the same field of precision medical clamping devices (predictable results and known improvements under KSR, MPEP 2143(I)(A) & 2144.04).
PNG
media_image2.png
381
549
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, modified Schmidt teaches, wherein: the female torsional bevels extend in parallel to one another; and the male torsional bevels extend in parallel to one another (Figure 2 of the prior art disclosed in Propp along with Paragraph [0003] describe a box hinge where edges (E1 and E2) are beveled, whereas clearly seen in Figure 2, Edges (E2) is clearly that of the female delimiting surfaces and the Edges (E1) are that of the male delimiting surfaces, where the female and male delimiting surfaces exists on either side of the components comprising the box hinge, similar to Schmidt, as such the female and male torsional bevels are indeed also extending in parallel to one another respectively).
Regarding claim 3, modified Schmidt teaches, wherein only the female delimiting surfaces are provided with the female torsional bevel (As discussed previously, Figure 2 of the prior art disclosed in Propp along with Paragraph [0003] describe a box hinge where edges (E1 and E2) are beveled, whereas clearly seen in Figure 2, Edges (E2) is clearly that of the female delimiting surfaces, as such indeed, only the female delimiting surfaces are provided with the female torsional bevel).
Regarding claim 4, modified Schmidt teaches, wherein only the male delimiting surfaces are provided with the male torsional bevel (As discussed previously, Figure 2 of the prior art disclosed in Propp along with Paragraph [0003] describe a box hinge where edges (E1 and E2) are beveled, whereas clearly seen in Figure 2, the Edges (E1) are that of the male delimiting surfaces, as such indeed, only the male delimiting surfaces are provided with the male torsional bevel).
Regarding claim 5, Schmidt further teaches, wherein the male delimiting surfaces (Male delimiting surfaces) extend in parallel to one another (Figure 2 clearly illustrates that indeed the (Male delimiting surfaces) are extending in parallel to one another).
Regarding claim 6, Schmidt further teaches, wherein the connection perforation (guide section (38)) has an elongated hole-like configuration (Figure 2) and defines a connection plane (See annotated Figure 2 below, (Connection plane)), and wherein the female delimiting surfaces (Female delimiting surfaces) extend in parallel to the connection plane (As seen in Figures 1-2 and 13, the (Female delimiting surfaces) are indeed extending parallel to the (Connection plane)).
PNG
media_image3.png
288
437
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Schmidt further teaches, wherein the male delimiting surfaces (Male delimiting surfaces) in the basic position extend in parallel to the connection plane (As seen in Figure 2 above, along with Figures 1 and 13 which illustrate the confinement of element (30) which defines the (Male delimiting surfaces) by section (38), the (Male delimiting surfaces) are indeed thus in the basic position extending in parallel to the (Connection plane)).
Regarding claim 8, modified Schmidt teaches, wherein the first clamping arm (second clamping jaw (40)) and the second clamping arm (first clamping jaw (32)) in the basic position extend in parallel to one another over their entire length (Figure 1 and Col. 11, line 48-65 of Schmidt; Further Qi’s transverse bends of the clamping arms that extend perpendicular to the first (opening/closing) direction are also extending parallel to one another over their entire length as seen in Figure 1 of Qi).
Regarding claim 9, Schmidt further teaches, wherein the biasing element is configured in the form of a coil spring with at least one complete winding extending around a pivot axis (Col. 4, line 20-29, “A coil spring 22 lies on longitudinal clip axis 24 at one end of clip 10 … Spring 22 is located between first flex section 28 and second flex section 36 so that it may urge first clamping jaw 32 and second clamping jaw 40 against each other.” Further, Col. 9, line 58-59, “Coil spring 22 is formed by winding member 12 about a mandrel.”; Figures 11A-11F; the coil is explicitly wound around the longitudinal clip axis (24), which functions as the pivot axis for opening/closing movement (or an axis that is perpendicular to longitudinal clip axis (24) and would pass through the center of coil spring (22) as seen in Figures 1, 10, and 11A-13)), and the first clamping arm (second clamping jaw (40)) and the second clamping arm (first clamping jaw (32)) are pivotable on the pivot axis from the basic position into an abutment position in which the clamping arms are further apart from one another relative to the basic position (Col. 5, line 44-51).
Regarding claim 10, Schmidt in view of Qi and further in view Propp, teach the claimed invention except for, “wherein the at least one female torsional bevel and/or the at least one male torsional bevel removes 40-60% of the female or male delimiting surface, respectively.” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one female torsional bevel and/or the at least one male torsional bevel remove 40-60% of the female or male delimiting surface, respectively, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. This evidenced through the following reasoning, Schmidt teaches connecting portions formed from a cylindrical rod, with delimiting surfaces at the interfacing joint. Propp teaches beveling the interface edges of a surgical instrument joint to prevent snagging and to guide motion. Standard chamfer practice (ISO 13715; Chamfer) discloses that the amount of material removed by a bevel is a result-effective variable that depends on the selected chamfer angle and surface width. Selecting a bevel such that approximately 40-60% of the delimiting surface is removed corresponds to choosing a mid-range chamfer (e.g., a 45 degree chamfer on a round cross section), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to balance clearance and guidance. In re Aller.
Regarding claim 12, Schmidt in view of Qi and further in view Propp, teach the claimed invention except for, “wherein: the female delimiting surfaces and female bevel surfaces, which are defined by the female torsional bevels, enclose a female bevel angle and wherein the female bevel angle has a value in a range of 5° to 25°; and the male delimiting surfaces and male bevel surfaces, which are defined by the male torsional bevels, enclose a male bevel angle and wherein the male bevel angle has a value in a range of 5° to 25°.” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the female delimiting surfaces and female bevel surfaces, which are defined by the female torsional bevels, enclose a female bevel angle and wherein the female bevel angle has a value in a range of 5° to 25°; and the male delimiting surfaces and male bevel surfaces, which are defined by the male torsional bevels, enclose a male bevel angle and wherein the male bevel angle has a value in a range of 5° to 25°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. This’s further evidenced by chamfer practice (ISO 13715) which shows chamfer angles are routinely specified, thus selecting an angle in the range of 5-25° is a matter of optimization based on the desired lead-in and torsional guidance. In re Aller.
Regarding claim 16, modified Schmidt teaches, the connection portion defines four connection portion edges and wherein two connection portion edges of the four connection portion edges that are rotated against one another are beveled by the male torsional bevels (Schmidt, Figure 2 and Col. 5, line 8-12, “Guided element 30 of first arm 26 is integrally connected to first flex section 28 on one end and to first clamping jaw 32 on its opposite end. Element 30 makes a simple turn 54 between first elbow 44 of flex section 28 and jaw 32, extending through guide section 38 of second arm 34 and across axis 24.” This describes the connection portion (guided element (30)) passing through the perforation (guide section (38)), with the elongated cross-section of the guided element defining four longitudinal connection portion edges (two pairs of opposite sides). Propp, Paragraph [0003], “…one of the members includes a slot having flat, parallel sides and the other member includes a portion machined to conform with the flat, parallel sides of the slot. The machined portion extends through the slot…”; Paragraph [0006], “…interacting surfaces of a snag-free medical or surgical instrument box hinge includes edges having a smooth cooperative transition…”; and see also Figures 5-8 teaching bevel-like smooth transitions or chamfers on the male delimiting surfaces/edges of the inserted portion on opposite side to eliminate edge snags, point contact, and jamming during relative movement. One of ordinary skill would apply Propp’s male bevels specifically to the two connection portion edges of Schmidt’s guided element (30) that are rotated against one another, as these are the edges that would otherwise create the torsional point/line contact under twisting forces from the angles jaws).
Regarding claim 17, Schmidt teaches, guided element (30) received in a guide section (38) where the fit between the part allows relative movement of the arms while the connection portion constrain rotation.
Schmidt fails to teach, wherein at least one of the female torsional bevels and the male torsional bevels are configured to guide and to delimit a torsional movement of the connecting portions upon closing the clamping arms when an object to be clamped is accommodated between them.
Qi teaches, aspects of the medical clip as claimed in claim 1 (See above rejection of claim 1).
Propp teaches, providing beveled machined edges at hinge interfaces (male/female slot) to guide interfacing members and reduce snagging (Figures 1-3; Paragraphs [0003]-[0004]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to apply bevels to the male and female delimiting surfaces of Schmidt, so that as the clamping arms close, the bevels guide and delimit torsional movement, as all the references and the claimed invention are directed to surgical grasping or holding instruments used to manipulate, secure, or occlude tissues and materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply bevels to the male and female delimiting surfaces of Schmidt, so that as the clamping arms close, the bevels guide and delimit torsional movement, as such a modification would have been predictable, namely, to ensure smooth articulation and reduce stress or snagging.
Regarding claim 18, Schmidt further teaches, wherein the male delimiting surfaces (Male delimiting surfaces) and the female delimiting surfaces (Female delimiting surfaces) each define sections of outer surfaces of a straight circular cylinder and wherein connecting portion longitudinal axes of the connecting portions each define circular cylinder longitudinal axes of the respective outer surfaces (clip (10) is formed from starting rod (1) seen in Figure 3 and disclosed as a solid, cylindrical, round wire rod (Col. 5, line 53-56). The guided element (30) is a continuation of the rod, so its (Male delimiting surfaces) are a section of a cylindrical outer surface. The guide section (38) includes matching cylindrical surfaces to receive and constrain the guided element in close proximity or near contact. The longitudinal axis (24) of the rod/clip corresponds to the connecting-portion longitudinal axes).
Regarding claim 19, Schmidt further teaches, wherein outer surface radii of the male delimiting surfaces (Male delimiting surfaces) and of the female delimiting surfaces (Female delimiting surfaces) are identical (Guided element (30) which includes the (Male delimiting surfaces) is inserted in the guide section (38) which includes the (Female delimiting surfaces) with minimal clearance. Further, both the guided element (30) and the guide section (38) are both formed of starting rod (1), as such they indeed do have an identical radii, but also the minimal recess between guided element (30) and the guide section (38) indicates an identical radii, otherwise they would not mate in near-contact along cylindrical sections).
Regarding claim 20, Schmidt further teaches, wherein the clip (clip (10)) is configured in the form of an aneurysm clip (Col. 4, line 13-17).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt, in view of Qi, further in view of Propp, and even further in view of Smith (US Patent No. 6056764).
Regarding claim 11, Schmidt teaches, aspects of the medical clip according to claim 1 (See above rejection of claim 1).
Schmidt fails to teach, wherein at least one of the female torsional bevels and the male torsional bevels define planar bevel surfaces.
Qi teaches, aspects of the medical clip as claimed in claim 1 (See above rejection of claim 1).
Propp teaches, the female torsional bevels and the male torsional bevels (Figures 1-3; Paragraph [0003]).
Smith teaches a surgical blade with a single bevel surfaces/edges, i.e., a planar bevel, on the cutting edge, further, the bevel angle is defined explicitly (Figures 1-5; Col. 3, line 16-18 and line 22-25).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to apply the planar bevels of Smith to the torsional bevel surfaces in the clip of Schmidt in view of Propp, as all the references and the claimed invention are directed to medical instruments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the planar bevels of Smith to the torsional bevel surfaces in the clip of Schmidt in view of Propp, as such a modification would have been predictable, namely, it is routine implementation of planar bevels to the male/female interface of Propp. Planar chamfers are standard edge-form choices.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt, in view of Qi, further in view of Propp, and even further in view of Tontarra (US Patent No. 9592097).
Regarding claim 13, Schmidt teaches, aspects of the medical clip according to claim 1 (See above rejection of claim 1).
Schmidt fails to teach, wherein the female torsional bevels and the male torsional bevels define curved bevel surfaces.
Qi teaches, aspects of the medical clip as claimed in claim 1 (See above rejection of claim 1).
Propp teaches, the female torsional bevels and the male torsional bevels (Figures 1-3; Paragraph [0003]).
Tontarra teaches a sliding/guide surface assembly where, “bevels (43) are connected by a curvature or domed embodiment of the guide surface (41)” (Figures 11-12; Col. 8, line 32-42) – i.e., a curved bevel (filleted edge).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to apply the curved bevels of Tontarra to the torsional bevel surfaces in the clip of Schmidt in view of Propp, as all the references and the claimed invention are directed to medical instruments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the curved bevels of Tontarra to the torsional bevel surfaces in the clip of Schmidt in view of Propp, as such a modification would have been predictable, namely, it demonstrates a known preference in surgical tool design for curved bevels, which would reduce friction or snag.
Regarding claim 14, modified Schmidt teaches, wherein the curved bevel surfaces define intersection lines with an intersection plane at the respective connecting portion transverse to the delimiting surfaces thereof, and wherein the intersection lines have a constant or increasing curvature commencing from the beveled delimiting surface (Applying the curved bevel of Tontarra to Propp’s beveled edges at the box hinge portion inherently yields intersection lines with continuously varying curvature – a predictable geometric outcome known in part geometry).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt, in view of Qi, further in view of Propp, even further in view of Tontarra, and even further in view of Helfgott (US Patent No. 4530356).
Regarding claim 15, Schmidt teaches, aspects of the medical clip according to claim 1 (See above rejection of claim 1).
Schmidt fails to teach, wherein the intersection lines of the torsional bevels define a section of an ellipse.
Qi teaches, aspects of the medical clip as claimed in claim 1 (See above rejection of claim 1).
Propp teaches, the torsional bevels (Figures 1-3; Paragraph [0003]).
Tontarra teaches, the intersection lines (See above rejection of claim 14).
Helfgott discloses an ophthalmic surgical instrument with beveled tip. Helfgott describes a cutting port with an elliptical opening, created by hollow-grinding with a cylindrical abrasive wheel (Figure 4; Col. 10, line 14-17 and line 30-34; Thus, the geometric principal is supported, where intersection of a plane with a cylinder (e.g., bevel plane and cylindrical connecting portion) yields an ellipse, so – intersection lines define an ellipse – is inherently satisfied).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the clip of Schmidt, in view of Propp, and further in view of Tontarra such that the intersection lines of the torsional bevels define a section of an ellipse as taught by Helfgott, as all the references and the claimed invention are directed to medical instruments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clip of Schmidt, in view of Propp, and further in view of Tontarra such that the intersection lines of the torsional bevels define a section of an ellipse as taught by Helfgott, as such a modification would have been predictable, namely, demonstrating that the intersection of a plane and a cylinder surface forms an ellipse, where the ellipse-section intersection is an inherent result of planar beveled geometry on a cylinder.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Schmidt teaches a "Box Lock" as claimed; No teaching away from Propp's “Box Hinge Structure”: Applicant asserts that Schmidt does not teach a "box lock" because it uses a single continuous bent wire with a U-shaped guide section (38) rather than an "enclosed through opening." Applicant further argues that combining Schmidt with Propp would contradict Schmidt's preference for a single continuous rod and its desire to avoid holes/recesses that could introduce microcracks.
These arguments are unpersuasive. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), Schmidt's guide section (38) and guided element (30) meet the claimed "box lock" having "a connection perforation arranged or formed as an enclosed through opening on the first connecting portion and a connection portion ... passing through the connection perforation." See Schmidt, Figure 2 and Col. 5, line 8-12 ("Guided element 30 ... extending through guide section 38 of second arm 34 …"). The guide section (38) functions as an enclosed passage that confines the guided element (30) on multiple sides, satisfying the recited structure. The fact that Schmidt forms the clip from a single continuous member does not preclude the presence of this interlocking configuration; it is simply the manufacturing technique used to create the functional box-lock geometry.
Schmidt does not "teach away" from the proposed combination with Propp (MPEP § 2145.X.D). A reference teaches away only if it criticizes, discredits, or discourages the claimed modification such that a skilled artisan would be led in a divergent direction. See In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Schmidt criticizes drilled holes, welded/riveted components, and machined recesses in prior art designs because they introduce microcracks in titanium (Col. 2, line 13-21). However, Schmidt does not criticize or discourage the functional interlocking geometry of a box lock itself. The single continuous rod is a manufacturing choice to avoid defects, not a prohibition on the resulting box-lock structure. Propp's box hinge provides known smooth transitions on delimiting surfaces to reduce snagging and jamming, a predictable improvement fully compatible with Schmidt's goal of reliable jaw alignment and smooth operation (Schmidt, Col. 1, line 13-24, emphasizing proper jaw alignment and avoidance of shearing).
Modifying Schmidt's box-lock region with Propp's known bevel-like smooth transitions on the male/female delimiting surfaces is a simple application of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(C)). It does not require replacing the single continuous rod with separate pieces, nor does it introduce the type of drilled holes or recesses Schmidt disparages. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying Propp's anti-jam features to Schmidt's existing box-lock geometry to reduce friction from torsional forces, particularly when Schmidt already uses angled jaws that inherently produce such forces.
The new/updated combination teaches the claimed “transverse bend perpendicular to the first direction”: Applicant argues that neither Schmidt nor Propp teaches the "transverse bend" extending in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
This argument is not persuasive. Newly discovered prior art, Qi (US PGPUB No. 20070032806 A1) expressly teaches an aneurysm clip with clamping arms that extend perpendicularly from the clip bars/spring region: a first clip arm that extends perpendicularly from the second clip bar, and a second clip arm that extends perpendicularly from the first clip bar ... wherein the plane defined by the clip arms is perpendicular to the planes defined by the clip bars (Qi, Paragraphs [0013] and [0037]; see also Figure 1). Qi explains that this geometry allows effective clipping at the root of the aneurysm while accommodating vessel wall morphology (Paragraphs [0004]-[0006]).
A skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate Qi's perpendicular transverse bend configuration into Schmidt's aneurysm clip (which already uses angled jaws and a coil spring biasing element) to achieve the same known benefit of improved access and placement for difficult-to-reach aneurysms. The modification is a predictable use of a known alternative jaw geometry in the aneurysm clip field. Schmidt's jaws are indeed readily combinable with Qi's explicit perpendicular extension.
The Combination Teaches or Renders Obvious the Female and/or Male Torsional Bevels on the Delimiting Surfaces: Applicant contends that Propp's bevels or smooth transitions (edges E1 and E2) are not formed on the "female delimiting surfaces facing toward one another" or "male delimiting surfaces facing away from one another and toward the female delimiting surfaces" as required.
The argument is unpersuasive. Propp teaches a box hinge with interacting delimiting surfaces on both the slot (female) side and the inserted portion (male) side, including "edges having a smooth cooperative transition" and "bevel-like continuous cross-sections" specifically to eliminate snag points, edge collisions, and jamming during relative movement (Paragraphs [0003], [0005]-[0006], [0008]-[0010]; Figures 1 and 5-8). When these teachings are applied to Schmidt's box lock (which already has opposing female delimiting surfaces on the guide section (38) and male delimiting surfaces on the guided element (30)), the result is male and/or female torsional bevels on the respective delimiting surfaces that face one another (or away and toward one another). The modification directly addresses the torsional forces and potential point/line contact that arise when angled jaws close on tissue, a problem recognized in both the present application and inherent in Schmidt's design.
The combination yields predictable results: smoother relative movement, reduced friction/jamming in the box lock, and improved reliability in precision medical clips. No hindsight is required; the references are all directed to hinged medical instruments requiring reliable, low-friction pivoting action.
Conclusion: The combination of Schmidt, Qi, and Propp renders the claimed subject matter obvious.
See updated rejections above.
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 OSAMA NEMER whose telephone number is (571)272-6365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at (571)272-4696. 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.
/O.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3771 /TAN-UYEN T HO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771
