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 .
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) 14, 28-31 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 9,549,734 to Reydel (Reydel hereinafter).
Regarding claims 14 and 29, Reydel teaches a clip (300) comprising an arm member with first arm (310), second arm (320), and a holder (100). Reydel teaches that in a closed state (step 2 of Fig. 1), the arms have different longitudinal lengths (or negative protrusion lengths) from the distal end of the proximal portion (301), and the longitudinal length in the open position (e.g. Fig. 3, step 9).
Regarding claim 30, Reydel teaches that the distance from the first end (310) is less than that of the second (320, see col. 9, ln. 16-29).
Regarding claim 31, Reydel teaches a longer distance of the distal end of the first arm than of the second arm (Fig. 3, step 9).
Regarding claims 28 and 33, Reydel teaches integral formation of the proximal portion (301) and the arms (310, 320, see e.g. claim 12).
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) 14-27 and 29-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0215886 to Muyari et al. (Muyari hereinafter) in view of US Pre-Grant Publication 2006/0155310 to Binmoeller (Binmoeller).
Regarding claim 14, Muyari teaches a first arm (20A) and a second arm (30) configured to transition between an open state (Fig. 18) and a closed state (Fig. 19), and a holder (10A) that extends along a longitudinal direction and receives the arm member. Muyari is silent to a different protrusion length when closed and an equal protrusion length when open. Binmoeller teaches another clip generally and particularly teaches that arms (70) may be independently actuated to allow for independent positional adjustment (paragraph 44) and improved surgical outcomes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide independent actuation of the clip arms of Muyari as taught by Binmoeller in order to improve positional adjustment. Thus provided, the clip would be capable of taking the positions specified in claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Binmoeller teaches that independent actuation allows for asymmetrical distal end distance to axis states, as illustrated in Fig. 3. The examiner holds that the open state may include more than one position of the arms such that both the positions required for claims 14 and 15 are met hereby.
Regarding claim 16, Muyari teaches an adjustment mechanism (10, 501, 502) configured to arrange the first arm and the second arm such that protruding lengths of the arms become equivalent (see e.g. Fig. 18) and differ in the closed state (Fig. 19). Furthermore, Binmoeller teaches independent actuation and positioning, as discussed above, which further renders obvious the orientations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Muyari teaches a first (middle of 21A) and a second (middle of 30A) curved portions of the arms which differ in curvature (see Fig. 17A).
Regarding claim 18, Muyari teaches a telescopic portion (502) in the second arm which is curved when the second arm is open and straightened when it is closed. Muyari teaches that this forms part of the adjustment mechanism.
Regarding claim 19, Muyari teaches a first (10, top) and a second (10, bottom) locking portion for locking the proximal portions of the arms where the axial positions may differ (due to play along D1, see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 20, Muyari teaches a marking portion (e.g. 55). The examiner notes that the marking portion is not limited to radiopaque or echogenic materials or in function.
Regarding claim 21, Muyari teaches that the arm member is configured to switch between the open state and the closed state (paragraph 104).
Regarding claims 22-26, Binmoeller teaches that independent actuation allows for asymmetrical distal end distance to axis states, as illustrated in Fig. 3. The examiner holds that the open state may include more than one position of the arms such that both the positions required for these claims are met hereby.
Regarding claim 27, as shown in Fig. 18, Muyari teaches differing curvature of the arms (20A, 30A) such that the first arm has a lesser curvature than the second.
Regarding claim 29, Muyari teaches a clip comprising an arm member (20A, 30A) with a first (20A) and a second (30A) arm which are together configured to have an open (Fig. 18) and closed (Fig. 19) state, as well as a holder (10A) extending along a longitudinal direction and at least partially receiving the arms. Muyari is silent to a different protrusion length when closed and an equal protrusion length when open. Binmoeller teaches another clip generally and particularly teaches that arms (70) may be independently actuated to allow for independent positional adjustment (paragraph 44) and improved surgical outcomes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide independent actuation of the clip arms of Muyari as taught by Binmoeller in order to improve positional adjustment. Thus provided, the clip would be capable of taking the positions specified.
Regarding claims 30-31, Binmoeller teaches that independent actuation allows for asymmetrical distal end distance to axis states, as illustrated in Fig. 3. The examiner holds that the open state may include more than one position of the arms such that both the positions required for claims 30 and 31 are met hereby.
Regarding claim 32, as shown in Fig. 18, Muyari teaches differing curvature of the arms (20A, 30A) such that the first arm has a lesser curvature than the second.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 2 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 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 in view of Reydel and of Muyari in view of Binmoeller.
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 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 30 April 2026
Prosecution Insights