Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/413,909

LIGATING CLIP FOR CONTINUOUS FIRING

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jan 16, 2024
Examiner
SCHWIKER, KATHERINE H
Art Unit
3771
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Hangzhou Sunstone Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
271 granted / 408 resolved
-3.6% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+35.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
453
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
42.9%
+2.9% vs TC avg
§102
17.2%
-22.8% vs TC avg
§112
31.0%
-9.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 408 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 12/29/2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-15 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-15 are presently pending in this application. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 9-10 recites “an upper chamber of the ligating clip” which should be “an upper chamber for the ligating clip”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 13-14 recites “an lower holding chamber of the ligating clip” which should be “an lower holding chamber for the ligating clip”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 23 recites “the relative movement” which should be “. 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 1-15 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 recites “a snap-fit structure comprising protrusions configured to connect with recess slots is arranged between the upper cartridge assembly and the lower cartridge assembly”. The specification does not disclose a snap-fit structure between the upper cartridge assembly and the lower cartridge assembly. While the drawings do show protrusions, they do not show where the protrusions sit into or the type of connection they provide. Thus, this limitation is considered new matter and appropriate correction is required. Claim 3 recites “a top side snap-fit structure comprising protrusions configured to connect with recess slots”. The specification does not disclose a top side snap-fit structure. While the drawings do show protrusions, they do not show where the protrusions sit into or the type of connection they provide. Thus, this limitation is considered new matter and appropriate correction is required. Claim 4 recites “middle upper snap-fit structure comprising protrusions configured to connect with recess slots”. The specification does not disclose a middle upper snap-fit structure. While the drawings do show protrusions, they do not show where the protrusions sit into or the type of connection they provide. Thus, this limitation is considered new matter and appropriate correction is required. Claims 7-11 recite “the cartridge sleeve comprises a snap-fit structure comprising protrusions configured to connect with recess slots”. The specification does not disclose a snap-fit structure of the cartridge sleeve. While the drawings do show protrusions, they do not show where the protrusions sit into or the type of connection they provide. Thus, this limitation is considered new matter and appropriate correction is required. Claims 12 recites “one side of a cover plate is hinged with a snap-fit structure comprising protrusions configured to connect with recess slots”. The specification does not disclose one side of a cover plate is hinged with a snap-fit structure comprising protrusions configured to connect with recess slots. While the drawings do show protrusions, they do not show where the protrusions sit into or the type of connection they provide. Thus, this limitation is considered new matter and appropriate correction is required. Claims 13 recites “a direct snap is formed between a cover plate and a snap-fit structure comprising protrusions configured to connect with recess slots”. The specification does not disclose a direct snap is formed between a cover plate and a snap-fit structure comprising protrusions configured to connect with recess slots. While the drawings do show protrusions, they do not show where the protrusions sit into or the type of connection they provide. Thus, this limitation is considered new matter and appropriate correction is required. Response to Arguments The Office notes that the claims are not indicated as allowable because they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 1, filed 12/29/2025, with respect to the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. 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 KATHERINE H SCHWIKER whose telephone number is (571)272-9503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am-4:00 pm. 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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at (571) 272-4695. 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. /KATHERINE H SCHWIKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 16, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Dec 29, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594070
SUTURING DEVICE WITH IMPROVED NEEDLE TRANSFERRING MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588921
TREATMENT TOOL, TREATMENT TOOL ASSEMBLING METHOD, AND TREATMENT TOOL DISASSEMBLING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569252
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TREATING ANEURYSMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564392
CONTAINMENT BAG
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558090
MULTI-FIRE FASTENER DELIVERY SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+35.5%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 408 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month