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
In light of Applicant’s amendment, claim(s) 1, 10, 13-14 is/are amended and claim(s) 2-9, 11-12, were previously 18 is/are canceled. Claims 1, 10, 13-17 and 19-20 are now pending examination.
The objections to the claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to claim(s) 14 is/are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/18/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner agrees the added limitations “an oval wing, the oval wing and the pinch tab of each of the pair of arms being integrally formed from plastic; a pair of oval non-stick absorbent pads are supported by the oval wing of each of the pair of arms, the wing of each of the pair of arms and the pair of oval non-stick absorbent pads are sized and configured to fit within a user's nostrils with the hinge and pinch tabs extending outward from the user's nostrils” overcome the previous rejection as written. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Renard in view of Ziegler and Buckman.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renard et al. (FR 3056902 A1) (in text citations correspond with attached Espacenet translation) (previously of record) in view of Ziegler (US 4120302 A) (previously of record) and in view of Buckman et al. (US 20050251183 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Renard et al. discloses an epistaxis clip (Figure 3) ("[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.), comprising:
a pair of arms (11, 12) connected to one another by a hinge (112) (Figure 3; Paragraph 0002), each pair of arms include a wing (113) at a first end and a pinch tab (111) at a second end (Figure 3; Paragraph 0002) (Renard states “The clamp according to the invention comprises two branches 11, 12 each comprising at least one clamping element 113”); and
an elastic band (31) wrapped around the pair of arms for biasing the wings to a clamped position (Figure 3; Paragraph 0002) (Renard states “the sleeve 30 defined above consists of a ring 31”).
Renard fails to disclose an oval wing, the oval wing and the pinch tab of each of the pair of arms being integrally formed from plastic; a pair of oval non-stick absorbent pads are supported by the oval wing of each of the pair of arms, the wing of each of the pair of arms and the pair of oval non-stick absorbent pads are sized and configured to fit within a user's nostrils with the hinge and pinch tabs extending outward from the user's nostrils.
However, Ziegler is directed to a surgical clamping device (13) and teaches a pair of absorbent pads (10) are supported by the wing (11, 12) of each of the pair of arms (11+16, 12+15) (Figure 1; Col 3, line 19-31; Col 8, line 66- Col 9, line 16).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Renard to include a pair of absorbent pads are supported by the wing of each of the pair of arms, as taught by Ziegler, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to surgical clamps. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Renard with the teachings of Ziegler by incorporating a pair of absorbent pads are supported by the wing of each of the pair of arms in order to improve cushioning, fluid absorption, improved traction, or controlled pressure distribution over a desired contact area (Ziegler Col 9, line 40-41).
Further, Buckman is directed to a medical clip (10) and teaches a pair of arms (12) with an oval wing (Figure 5A-B; Paragraph 0074), the oval wing and the pinch tab of each of the pair of arms being integrally formed from plastic (Paragraph 0055); a pair of oval non-stick absorbent pads are supported by the oval wing of each of the pair of arms (Figure 5A-B; Paragraph 0074). As a result, the wing of each of the pair of arms and the pair of oval non-stick absorbent pads are sized and configured to fit within a user's nostrils with the hinge and pinch tabs extending outward from the user's nostrils (Structurally, the wings and pads are fully capable of being sized to fit within a user’s nostrils, as the limitation recites intended use. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to change the shape of the wing and pads as taught by Buckman, since it has been held that changing the shape was a matter a choice one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP 2144. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the shape of the wings and pads to elliptical in order to provide broad force distribution and encompass a substantial amount of tissue (Buckman Paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 19, Renard further discloses wherein the pair of arms each include a groove (40), the elastic band is received in the groove of each of the pair of arms (Figure 3; Paragraph 0002) (Renard states “In the case where the sleeve 30 is produced in the form of a ring 31, it is advantageous that, on the outer surface of at least one of the two branches 11, 12, grooves 40 are produced in a substantially regularly spaced manner, in which the ring is capable of being positioned selectively at the surgeon's discretion”.)
Regarding claim 20, Renard further discloses wherein the groove on each of the pair of arms is located between the hinge and the wing (Figure 3).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renard in view of Ziegler and Buckman and further in view of Buzard (US 20040010283 A1) (noted on IDS).
Regarding claim 10, Renard as modified by Ziegler and Buckman teaches the epistaxis clip according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the hinge includes a hinge pin extending through the pair of arms.
However, Buzard is directed to a clamp and teaches the hinge (22+24+26) includes a hinge pin (28) extending through the pair of arms (12, 14) (Figure 1, 5; Paragraph 0015).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Renard as modified by Ziegler and Buckman such that the hinge includes a hinge pin extending through the pair of arms, as taught by Buzard, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to clamps. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Renard as modified by Ziegler and Buckman with the teachings of Buzard by incorporating the hinge includes a hinge pin extending through the pair of arms in order to secure the hinge with the arms., as Renard is silent to the structure of the hinge.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakakine et al. (US 20060195125 A1) in view of Buckman et al (US 20050251183 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Sakakine discloses an epistaxis clip (100) ("[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.), comprising:
a pair of arms connected to one another by a hinge (140+142), each pair of arms (110, 120) include a wing (112, 122) at a first end and a pinch tab (114, 124) at a second end (Figure 7; Paragraph 0030), the wing and the pinch tab of each of the pair of arms being integrally formed from plastic (injection-molded thermoplastic) (Paragraph 0038); and
a pair of non-stick absorbent pads (150, 152) are supported by the wing of each of the pair of arms (Figure 7; Paragraph 0029; 0038) (the pads may be formed of a foam rubber, which can be absorbent and non-stick), wherein the pair of arms each include a protruding hinge portion (140, 142) between the wing and the pinch tab (Figure 7; Paragraph 0030), the protruding hinge portions each overlapping each other and receiving a hinge pin (143, 145) extending through an aligned aperture (144, 146) in each protruding hinge portion (Figure 7; Paragraph 0030), the wing of each of the pair of arms and the pair of oval non-stick absorbent pads are sized and configured to fit within a user's nostrils with the hinge and pinch tabs extending outward from the user's nostrils (Structurally, the wings and pads are fully capable of being sized to fit within a user’s nostrils, as the limitation recites intended use. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.).
Sakakine fails to explicitly disclose an oval wing and oval non-stick absorbent pads.
However, Buckman is directed to a medical clip (10) and teaches each pair of arms (12) include an oval wing and a pair of oval non-stick absorbent pads (16) are supported by the oval wing of each of the pair of arms (Figure 5A-B; Paragraph 0055; 0074).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to change the shape of the wing and pads as taught by Buckman, since it has been held that changing the shape was a matter a choice one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP 2144. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the shape of the wings and pads to elliptical in order to provide broad force distribution and encompass a substantial amount of tissue (Buckman Paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 14, Sakakine discloses an epistaxis clip (100) ("[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.), comprising:
a pair of arms connected to one another by a hinge (140+142), each pair of arms (110, 120) include a wing (112, 122) at a first end and a pinch tab (114, 124) at a second end (Figure 7; Paragraph 0030), the wing and the pinch tab of each of the pair of arms being integrally formed from plastic (injection-molded thermoplastic) (Paragraph 0038); and
a pair of non-stick absorbent pads (150, 152) are supported by the wing of each of the pair of arms (Figure 7; Paragraph 0029; 0038) (the pads may be formed of a foam rubber, which can be absorbent and non-stick), the oval wing of each of the pair of arms and the pair of oval non-stick absorbent pads are sized and configured to fit within a user's nostrils with the hinge and pinch tabs extending outward from the user's nostrils (Structurally, the wings and pads are fully capable of being sized to fit within a user’s nostrils, as the limitation recites intended use. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.) and
a resilient member (130) engaged with the pair of arms for biasing the wings to a clamped position (Paragraph 0027).
Sakakine fails to explicitly disclose an oval wing and oval non-stick absorbent pads.
However, Buckman is directed to a medical clip (10) and teaches each pair of arms (12) include an oval wing and a pair of oval non-stick absorbent pads (16) are supported by the oval wing of each of the pair of arms (Figure 5A-B; Paragraph 0055; 0074).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to change the shape of the wing and pads as taught by Buckman, since it has been held that changing the shape was a matter a choice one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP 2144. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the shape of the wings and pads to elliptical in order to provide broad force distribution and encompass a substantial amount of tissue (Buckman Paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 15, Sakakine further discloses wherein the resilient member is disposed between the pinch tabs (Figure 7; Paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 16, Sakakine further discloses wherein the resilient member is adhered to at least one pinch tab (Figure 5; Paragraph 0028).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakakine in view of Buckman and further in view of Whelan (US 20200170643 A1) (noted on IDS).
Regarding claim 17, Sakakine as modified by Buckman discloses the clip according to claim 14, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the resilient member is a foam.
However, Whelan is directed to a medical clip and teaches a bias (194) which may comprise one or more of a spring and a foam (Paragraph 0133; 0276).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Sakakine as modified by Buckman such that the resilient member (spring of Sakakine) is a foam, as taught by Whelan, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to medical clips. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sakakine as modified by Buckman with the teachings of Whelan by incorporating the resilient member is a foam, as it is known that a spring and foam can perform the same function of biasing a clip and are known substitutes for one another. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., 962 F.3d 1373, 1379, 2020 USPQ2d 10706 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). "[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
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 ZEHRA JAFFRI whose telephone number is (571)272-7738. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM-5:30 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.
/Z.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/KATHERINE H SCHWIKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights