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 September 1, 2023 and February 20, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 sipe as mentioned in claims 7-10 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 334. 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. 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 § 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 1-3, 6, 13-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TWM488304U.
As to claim 1, TWM488304U discloses a device (10), as illustrated in Figures 1-6, comprising a forceps tip including a tip body (20) having a proximal longitudinal end, a distal longitudinal end, and a contact surface (21) therebetween, wherein the contact surface includes a first convex lobe (see Figures 4 and 5) proximate the proximal longitudinal end and a second convex lobe (221) (see Figure 4) adjacent to the first convex lobe in a distal longitudinal direction.
As to claim 2, the contact surface is silicone (the material of the collet 20 is a medical silicone gel- see the 6th paragraph on page 4 of TWM488304U – Google Patents English Translation).
With claim 3, the tip body is silicone (the material of the collet 20 is a medical silicone gel - see the 6th paragraph on page 4 of TWM488304U – Google Patents English Translation).
With claim 6, the tip body includes a connection interface at the proximal longitudinal end (via the mounting of the clips 20 on rod 14 – see Figures 1 and 6).
As to claim 13, TWM488304U discloses a device (contact lens tweezers), as illustrated in Figures 1-6, comprising a forceps body including a first prong (11,12) having a proximal end and a distal end, and a second prong (11,12) having a proximal end and a distal end (see annotated drawing below), wherein the first prong and second prong are coupled to one another and movable relative to one another; and a forceps tip including a tip body (20) having a proximal longitudinal end, a distal longitudinal end, and a contact surface (21) therebetween, wherein the contact surface includes a first convex lobe (see Figures 4 and 5) proximate the proximal longitudinal end and a second convex lobe (221) (see Figure 4) adjacent to the first convex lobe in a distal longitudinal direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
232
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With claim 14, the first prong and second prong are coupled to one another at the proximal end of the first prong and the proximal end of the second prong (see annotated drawing above).
With claim 17, the forceps tip is a first forceps tip, and the device further comprises a second forceps tip coupled to the distal end of the second prong, wherein the second forceps tip is symmetrical to the first forceps tip across a center plane of the device.
With claim 18, the device has an open position and a closed position, and in the closed position, the first convex lobe of the first forceps tip and the first convex lobe of the second forceps tip contact one another.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TWM488304U.
TWM488304U discloses the claimed invention except for the silicone has a Shore durometer in a range of 20A to 70A. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to specify that the silicone has a Shore durometer in a range of 20A to 70A, 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 involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TWM488304U in view of JP7577727B2.
TWM488304U discloses the claimed invention except for the silicone to be FDA-compliant food grade. JP7577727B2 teaches it is well known to construct foldable handheld tools such as a spoon comprising certified FDA High quality food grade silicone (SR/LSR), elastomer featuring a wide temperature resistance range from -103°F to 500°F. It is non-stick, non-toxic, highly elongated, flexible, and has low compression set (see paragraph [0044] of English Translation @ https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/066668978/publication/JP7577727B2?q=pn%3DJP7577727B2&queryLang=en%3Ade%3Afr).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use an FDA-compliant silicone in TWM488304U, since it is considered to be is non-stick, non-toxic, highly elongated, flexible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12, 15-16 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 is allowed. The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination. In particular, the prior art of record does not teach a system further having in combination with a forceps storage container including a first interior volume, a second interior volume, a wall separating the first interior volume from the second interior volume, a first aperture through the wall and connecting the first interior volume and second interior volume.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Deng, Omberg, and Boron are cited as being relevant art, because each prior art discloses a device comprising a forceps tip having a tip body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 am - 3:30 pm EST.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
STEPHEN VU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/STEPHEN A VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights