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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the reply filed on 04/09/2026 in which claims 1, 10, 12, 13, 15-17, and 19, were amended. Currently, claims 1-26 are pending for examination in this application.
Response to Arguments
With regards to the amended claim language of independent claim 1, applicant’s representative asserts that both the prior to Kokish and Duffy fail to independently disclose “the first pad defining at least one first recess extending along a longitudinal length of the first pad.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the examiner notes that the phrase “longitudinal length” has not be explicitly defined. Lacking any explicit definition within applicant’s specification or further limitations within the claim regarding orientations of relative surface and/or structures, the recited “longitudinal length” can be interpreted in a variety of directions/orientations. Further, with regards to the arguments specifically made against the prior art, applicant’s representative appears to have arbitrarily defined directional orientations of the prior art structures to align with the argument. However, even if one were to assume applicant’s representative’s assertations were correct, this negates the fact that the argument would only be valid for a two-dimensional figure. The recesses taught by the prior art extend along the cited pads in multiple dimensions. As such, applicant’s representative’s arguments are improper and unconvincing.
With regards to independent claim 20, applicant’s representative asserts that the prior art to Duffy fails to teach “the first pad includes a first wall extending at least from a first outer edge of the first surface of the first pad toward the second surface of the second pad, and the second pad includes a second wall extending at least from a first outer edge of the second surface of the second pad toward the first surface of the first pad.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, applicant’s representative makes the statement that “Duffy does not disclose or suggest any pad walls that extend from pad outer edges toward the opposing pad to define a channel.” The examiner would note that the limitation of a “channel” (or “recess,” for that matter) is not recited in independent claim 20. Furthermore, as best understood by the examiner, applicant’s representatives’ argument appears to be not only redefining the interpretation provided by examiner with an explicit definition for the term “wall,” but also importing additional elements not found in the currently recited claim limitations. Once again, lacking any explicit definition within applicant’s specification for the term “wall,” or additional limitations within the claim, the interpretation for the term “wall” provided by the examiner in the standing rejection is valid. As such, applicant’s representative’s arguments are improper and unconvincing.
With regards to the claim language of independent claim 26, applicant’s representative asserts that both the prior to Kokish and Duffy fail to independently disclose “the first pad and the second pad configured to maintain the elongated medical device at a center portion of the first pad and the second pad when engaged with the elongated medical device.” Again, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the standing rejections under both Kokish and Duffy, the “elongated medical device” is only functionally recited and therefore not a positively recited claim structure. Furthermore, applicant’s representatives’ argument is merely directed toward a functional capability of the first and second pad involving the functionally recited structure of an “elongated medical device.” The examiner reminds applicant’s representative that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The structures taught by both Kokish and Duffy are clearly capable of meeting the functional limitation of the claim, especially given that the “elongated medical device” is not only undefined structurally, but also functionally recited. As such, applicant’s representative’s arguments are improper and unconvincing.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kokish et al. (PGPub 2015/0297864).
[Claims 1 and 26] Kokish teaches an apparatus (figure 21, item 400) for supporting an elongated medical device (figure 24, item 424) (paragraph [0079]), the apparatus comprising:
a first jaw (figure 21, item 406) having a first surface (figure 24, item 420b);
a first pad (figure 24, item 422b) arranged on the first surface (figure 24, item 420b) of the first jaw (figure 21, item 406), the first pad (figure 24, item 422b) defining at least one first recess (as shown in figure 24; see annotated figure below) extending along a longitudinal length of the first pad (figure 24, item 422b);
a second jaw (figure 21, item 408) having a second surface (figure 24, item 420b), the second surface (figure 24, item 420b) being opposite the first surface (figure 24, item 420b) (figure 24); and
a second pad (figure 24, item 422b) arranged on the second surface (figure 24, item 420b) of the second jaw (figure 21, item 408),
the first pad (figure 24, item 422b) and the second pad (figure 24, item 422b) configured to maintain the elongated medical device (figure 24, item 424) at a center portion of the first pad (figure 24, item 422b) and the second pad (figure 24, item 422b) when engaged with the elongated medical device (figure 24, item 424) (figure 24; paragraph [0081]).
PNG
media_image1.png
644
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[Claims 2 and 3] Kokish teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which claims 2 and 3 depend. In addition, Kokish discloses
the first pad (figure 24, item 422b) and the second pad (figure 24, item 422b) are configured to engage the elongated medical device (figure 24, item 424) (figure 24; paragraph [0081]); and
the at least one first recess (as shown in figure 24; see annotated figure above) is configured to maintain the elongated medical device (figure 24, item 424) at a center portion of the at least one first recess (as shown in figure 24; see annotated figure above) during movement of the elongated medical device (figure 24, item 424) (figure 24; paragraph [0081]),
wherein the movement of the elongated medical device (figure 24, item 424) includes one or more of axial movement, rotation, pinching, attachment, and clamping of the elongated medical device (figure 24, item 424) between the first jaw (figure 21, item 406) and the second jaw (figure 21, item 408) (figure 24; paragraph [0081]).
[Claim 4] Kokish teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 4 depends. Kokish further discloses the at least one first recess (as shown in figure 24; see annotated figure above) has a concave or V-shape (figure 24; paragraph [0081]).
[Claim 5] Kokish teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 5 depends. Kokish also teaches the second pad (figure 24, item 422b) defines at least one second recess (as shown in figure 24; see annotated figure above) extending along at least a portion of a length of the second pad (figure 24, item 422b) (figure 24; paragraph [0081]).
Claims 1-18, 20-22, 25, and 26, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duffy (USPN 5,022,290).
[Claims 1 and 26] Duffy teaches an apparatus (figure 1) for supporting an elongated medical device (the examiner notes the “elongated medical device” is only functionally recited), the apparatus comprising:
a first jaw (figure 2, item 15) having a first surface (see annotated figure below);
a first pad (figure 2, item 15b) arranged on the first surface (see annotated figure below) of the first jaw (figure 2, item 15), the first pad (figure 2, item 15b) defining at least one first recess (see annotated figure below) extending along a longitudinal length of the first pad (figure 2, item 15b);
a second jaw (figure 2, item 19) having a second surface (see annotated figure below), the second surface (see annotated figure below) being opposite the first surface (see annotated figure below) (figure 2); and
a second pad (figure 4, item 19k) arranged on the second surface (see annotated figure below) of the second jaw (figure 2, item 19) (figure 4),
the first pad (figure 2, item 15b) and the second pad (figure 4, item 19k) configured to maintain the elongated medical device at a center portion of the first pad (figure 2, item 15b) and the second pad (figure 4, item 19k) when engaged with the elongated medical device (figure 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
418
713
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[Claims 2 and 3] Duffy teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which claims 2 and 3 depend. In addition, Duffy discloses
the first pad (figure 2, item 15b) and the second pad (figure 4, item 19k) are configured to engage the elongated medical device (figure 2); and
the at least one first recess (see annotated figure above) is configured to maintain the elongated medical device (again, the examiner notes the medical device is only functionally recited) at a center portion of the at least one first recess (see annotated figure above) during movement of the elongated medical device (figures 1 and 2),
wherein the movement of the elongated medical device (again, the examiner notes the medical device is only functionally recited) includes one or more of axial movement, rotation, pinching, attachment, and clamping of the elongated medical device between the first jaw (figure 2, item 15) and the second jaw (figure 2, item 19) (figures 1 and 2).
[Claim 4] Duffy teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 4 depends. Duffy further discloses the at least one first recess (see annotated figure above) has a concave or V-shape (figures 1-3).
[Claims 5-8] Duffy teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which claims 5-8 depend. Duffy also teaches
the second pad (figure 4, item 19k) defines at least one second recess (see annotated figure below) extending along at least a portion of a length of the second pad (figure 4, item 19k),
wherein:
the at least one first recess (see annotated figure above) includes a first curved surface (figure 3) extending in a longitudinal direction of the first pad (figure 2, item 15b);
the at least one second recess (see annotated figure below) includes a second curved surface (figure 4) extending in a longitudinal direction of the second pad (figure 4, item 19k);
a curvature of the first curved surface (figure 3) extends in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the first pad (figure 2, item 15b) (figure 3);
a curvature of the second curved surface (figure 4) extends in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the second pad (figure 4, item 19k) (figure 4); and
at least one of the first curved surface (figure 3) or the second curved surface (figure 4) has a constant radius of curvature (figures 1-4).
PNG
media_image3.png
426
292
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[Claim 9] Duffy teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 9 depends. Duffy further discloses
at least a portion of at least one of the first pad (figure 2, item 15b) or the second pad (figure 4, item 19k) has a contoured surface (figures 1-4); and
the contoured surface has a cyclical pattern (figures 1-4).
[Claims 10 and 11] Duffy teaches the limitations of claim 9, upon which claims 10 and 11 depend. In addition, Duffy teaches
a magnitude of the cyclical pattern decreases (the “pattern” can be seen to be decreasing in magnitude from peak to valley) from exterior edges (the examiner notes that the “exterior edges” have not been explicitly defined; hence, multiple “exterior edges” exist) of the first pad (figure 2, item 15b) towards a center (additionally, the examiner notes a specific starting point and end point for the “decrease” has not been explicitly defined) of the first pad (figure 2, item 15b); and
a magnitude of the cyclical pattern decreases (the “pattern” can be seen to be decreasing in magnitude from peak to valley) from exterior edges (the examiner notes that the “exterior edges” have not been explicitly defined; hence, multiple “exterior edges” exist) of the second pad (figure 4, item 19k) towards a center (additionally, the examiner notes a specific starting point and end point for the “decrease” has not been explicitly defined) of the second pad (figure 4, item 19k);
wherein the cyclical pattern of the first pad (figure 2, item 15b) is 180° out of phase (the examiner notes the claim does not indicate how or when this is required) with the cyclical pattern of the second pad (figure 4, item 19k) (the examiner notes the relative movement of the two jaws would allow for this orientation).
[Claims 12-14] Duffy teaches the limitations of claim 9, upon which claims 12-14 depend. Duffy further discloses
at least a portion of the first pad (figure 2, item 15b) includes a first undulating surface (figure 3) extending along at least the portion of the longitudinal length of the first pad (figure 2, item 15b); and
the at least one first recess (see annotated figure above) is defined in the first undulating surface (figure 3);
wherein at least a portion of the second pad (figure 4, item 19k) includes a second undulating surface (figure 4) extending along at least the portion of a length of the second pad (figure 4, item 19k); and
at least one second recess (see annotated figure above) is defined in the second undulating surface (figure 4);
wherein the first undulating surface includes a first plurality of waves (figure 3);
the second undulating surface includes a second plurality of waves (figure 4);
peaks of the first plurality of waves are configured to align with valleys of the second plurality of waves (the examiner notes the relative movement of the two jaws would allow for this orientation); and
peaks of the second plurality of waves are configured to align with valleys of the first plurality of waves (the examiner notes the relative movement of the two jaws would allow for this orientation).
[Claims 15 and 16] Duffy teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which claims 15 and 16 depend. Duffy also teaches
a plurality of first recesses (figure 3) extending along the longitudinal length of the first pad (figure 2, item 15b), each of the plurality of first recesses being a curved or V-shaped groove (figure 3); and
a plurality of second recesses (figure 4) extending along at least a portion of a length of the second pad (figure 4, item 19k), each of the plurality of second recesses being a curved or V-shaped groove (figure 4).
[Claim 17] Duffy teaches the limitations of claim 16, upon which claim 17 depends. Duffy further discloses the plurality of first recesses align with the plurality of second recesses (the examiner notes the relative movement of the two jaws would allow for this orientation).
[Claim 18] Duffy teaches the limitations of claim 16, upon which claim 18 depends. Duffy also discloses the plurality of first recesses are offset from the plurality of second recesses (the examiner notes the relative movement of the two jaws would allow for this orientation).
[Claims 20-22] Duffy teaches an apparatus (figure 1) for supporting an elongated medical device (the examiner notes the “elongated medical device” is only functionally recited), the apparatus comprising:
a first jaw (figure 2, item 15) having a first surface (see annotated figure below);
a second jaw (figure 2, item 19) having a second surface (see annotated figure below), the second surface (see annotated figure below) facing the first surface (see annotated figure below) of the first jaw (figure 2, item 15);
a first pad (figure 2, item 15b) arranged on the first surface (see annotated figure below) of the first jaw (figure 2, item 15); and
a second pad (figure 4, item 19k) arranged on the second surface (see annotated figure below) of the second jaw (figure 2, item 19);
wherein a first surface (crevices of first pad 15b) of the first pad (figure 2, item 15b) faces a second surface (crevices of second pad 19k) of the second pad (figure 4, item 19k) (figure 2),
the first pad (figure 2, item 15b) includes a first wall (see annotated figure below) extending at least from a first outer edge of the first surface (crevices of first pad 15b) of the first pad (figure 2, item 15b) toward the second surface (crevices of second pad 19k) of the second pad (figure 4, item 19k),
the second pad (figure 4, item 19k) includes a second wall (see annotated figure below) extending at least from a first outer edge of the second surface (crevices of second pad 19k) of the second pad (figure 4, item 19k) toward the first surface (crevices of first pad 15b) of the first pad (figure 2, item 15b),
the first pad (figure 2, item 15b) includes a third wall (see annotated figure below) extending at least from a second outer edge of the first surface (crevices of first pad 15b) of the first pad (figure 2, item 15b) toward the second surface (crevices of second pad 19k) of the second pad (figure 4, item 19k); and
the second pad (figure 4, item 19k) includes a fourth wall (see annotated figure below) extending at least from a second outer edge of the second surface (crevices of second pad 19k) of the second pad (figure 4, item 19k) toward the first surface (crevices of first pad 15b) of the first pad (figure 2, item 15b).
PNG
media_image4.png
376
354
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[Claim 25] Duffy teaches the limitations of claim 20, upon which claim 25 depends. Duffy further discloses the first pad (figure 2, item 15b) and the second pad (figure 4, item 19k) are configured to engage the elongated medical device (again, the examiner notes the medical device is only functionally recited), and to maintain the elongated medical device at a center portion of the first pad (figure 2, item 15b) and the second pad (figure 4, item 19k) during movement of the elongated medical device (figures 1-4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is allowed.
Claims 23 and 24 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.
The examiner notes reasons for indicating allowable subject matter were indicated in the non-final Office action dated 01/13/2026.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON E FLICK whose telephone number is (571)270-7024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 a.m.-3 p.m. Eastern Time.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.
/JASON E FLICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 06/05/2026
Prosecution Insights