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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 09/15/2025 and RCE filed on 09/29/2025. Claims 1 and 6-20 are pending. Claims 1, 6, and 11 are independent. Claims 6-19 are withdrawn.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/15/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Currently, none of the claim limitations are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because numeral “47” is indicating a non-twisted portion of wire. 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.
Specification
The amendment filed 09/15/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the added material “Referring to FIG. 2, the second branch portion 33 may be formed from a first single wire length that is interwoven with the third branch portion 41 to form a first portion 47 of the third branch portion 41, and the first branch portion 25 is formed from a second single wire length that is interwoven with the third branch portion 41 to form a second portion 49 of the third branch portion 41” is not supported by the original disclosure because the wire portions are twisted instead of interwoven as shown in Fig. 2 and described in the original disclosure. Furthermore, the third brand portion 41 appears to be formed by first (twisted) portion 47 and second (twisted) portion 49 (Figs. 1 and 2). The first portion 47 of the third branch portion 41 is shown to be an extension of the second branch portion 33. The first portion 47 is not interwoven or twisted with a portion/length of the second branch portion 33 (Figs. 1 and 2). The second portion 49 of the third branch portion 41 is shown to be an extension of the third portion 31 of the first branch portion 25. The second portion 49 is not interwoven or twisted with a portion/length of the first branch portion 25 (Figs. 1 and 2).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Newly added paragraph [0080.01], lines 6-7, “a second portion 29” should be amended to “a second portion 37” because “29” is a second portion of the first brand portion of wire 25 as shown in Fig. 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, the limitation “when the handle is pulled, the first loop and then the second loop are pulled sequentially through the sleeve in opposite directions” contains new matter in light of the amended specification and drawings. As identified in the amended specification and drawings, the first loop is 71 and the second loop is 61. The specification does not disclose that when the handle 50 is pulled, the first loop 71 and then the second loop 61 are pulled sequentially through the sleeve in opposite directions. Instead, the disclosure describes that when the handle is pulled, the second loop 61 and then the second loop 71 are pulled sequentially through the sleeve in opposite directions (see Figs. 12-17 and Paras. [0094]-[0100])
Claim 20, the limitation “wherein the second branch portion is formed from a first single wire length that is twisted together with the third branch portion to form a first portion of the third branch portion, and the first branch portion is formed from a second single wire length that is twisted together with the third branch portion to form a second portion of the third branch portion” is not supported in the original disclosure and is considered as new matter. As explained in the objection to the drawings above, the first portion 47 of the third branch portion 41 is shown to be an extension of the second branch portion 33. The first portion 47 is not interwoven or twisted with a portion/length of the second branch portion 33 (Figs. 1 and 2). The second portion 49 of the third branch portion 41 is shown to be an extension of the third portion 31 of the first branch portion 25. The second portion 49 is not interwoven or twisted with a portion/length of the first branch portion 25 (Figs. 1 and 2).
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 and 20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the wire bore" in line 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Line 11 of claim 1 also recites “the wire bore.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
In response to the argument(s) on pages 9-10 of the remarks, as explained in the office action dated 01/24/2025, claims 11-19 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: newly submitted claims 11-19 is directed to a species independent or distinct from the species recited in original claims 1-5. The species are independent or distinct because claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. The species recited in original presented claims 1-5 is directed to a snare consisting of a single wire looping around the sleeve to form a first loop and a second loop, whereas the species recited in claims 11-19 is directed to a snare comprising a first wire forming a first loop and a second wire forming a second loop. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
In response to the argument(s) on pages 10-11 of the remarks, the drawings (amended Fig. 2) are objected to because numeral “47” is indicating a non-twisted portion of wire. 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.
In response to the argument(s) on page 11 of the remarks, the amendment to the specification filed 09/15/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the added material “Referring to FIG. 2, the second branch portion 33 may be formed from a first single wire length that is interwoven with the third branch portion 41 to form a first portion 47 of the third branch portion 41, and the first branch portion 25 is formed from a second single wire length that is interwoven with the third branch portion 41 to form a second portion 49 of the third branch portion 41” is not supported by the original disclosure because the wire portions are twisted instead of interwoven as shown in Fig. 2 and described in the original disclosure. Furthermore, the third brand portion 41 appears to be formed by first (twisted) portion 47 and second (twisted) portion 49 (Figs. 1 and 2). The first portion 47 of the third branch portion 41 is shown to be an extension of the second branch portion 33. The first portion 47 is not interwoven or twisted with a portion/length of the second branch portion 33 (Figs. 1 and 2). The second portion 49 of the third branch portion 41 is shown to be an extension of the third portion 31 of the first branch portion 25. The second portion 49 is not interwoven or twisted with a portion/length of the first branch portion 25 (Figs. 1 and 2).
In response to the argument(s) on pages 11-12 of the remarks, claim 1, the limitation “when the handle is pulled, the first loop and then the second loop are pulled sequentially through the sleeve in opposite directions” contains new matter in light of the amended specification and drawings. As identified in the amended specification and drawings, the first loop is 71 and the second loop is 61. The specification does not disclose that when the handle 50 is pulled, the first loop 71 and then the second loop 61 are pulled sequentially through the sleeve in opposite directions. Instead, the disclosure describes that when the handle is pulled, the second loop 61 and then the second loop 71 are pulled sequentially through the sleeve in opposite directions (see Figs. 12-17 and Paras. [0094]-[0100])
Claim 20, the limitation “wherein the second branch portion is formed from a first single wire length that is twisted together with the third branch portion to form a first portion of the third branch portion, and the first branch portion is formed from a second single wire length that is twisted together with the third branch portion to form a second portion of the third branch portion” is not supported in the original disclosure and is considered as new matter. As explained in the objection to the drawings above, the first portion 47 of the third branch portion 41 is shown to be an extension of the second branch portion 33. The first portion 47 is not interwoven or twisted with a portion/length of the second branch portion 33 (Figs. 1 and 2). The second portion 49 of the third branch portion 41 is shown to be an extension of the third portion 31 of the first branch portion 25. The second portion 49 is not interwoven or twisted with a portion/length of the first branch portion 25 (Figs. 1 and 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING RUI OU whose telephone number is (571)270-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am -5:00pm.
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.
/JING RUI OU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771