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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-12 and 22-23) in the reply filed on 06/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/30/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 08/12/2024, has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites the limitation of “the gripping force” in the 17th line of the claim. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. The limitation should be amended to “a gripping force.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites the limitation of “the respective lever body” in the 12th and 13th lines of the claim. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. The limitation should be amended to “a respective lever body.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites the limitation of “the respective lever body” in the 4th line of the claim. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. The limitation should be amended to “a respective lever body.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites the limitation of “the respective proximal lever ends” in the 4th line of the claim. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. The limitation should be amended to “respective proximal lever ends” or “a respective proximal lever end.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites the limitation of “the gripping force” in the 7th line of the claim. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. The limitation should be amended to “a gripping force.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites the limitation of “the closed position” in the 8th line of the claim. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. The limitation should be amended to “a closed position.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-12 and 22-23 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] The claim recites the limitation of “relatively swingable” in the 7th line of the claim. The term “relatively” is a relative term and is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Furthermore, it is unclear if this term is meant to apply to “relative” positions of the tool levers, or if it is meant to apply to a “relative” ability of the levers to move “into and out of a closed position.” For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the tool levers need only be able to move relative to each other into and out of a closed position.
[Claim 1] The claim recites the limitation of “with the jaws cooperatively engaging the catheter element in the closed position” in the 10th and 11th lines of the claim. As the “catheter element” is only recited functionally before this limitation in the claim, it is unclear if the claim intends to positively recite the “catheter element” or if the “catheter element” is merely a functional limitation. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the “catheter element” is only recited functionally and that the limitation should recite “with the jaws capable to engage the catheter element in the closed position.”
[Claim 1] The claim recites the limitation of “a respective tool lever” in the 12th line of the claim. The examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim, since it is unclear if this limitation refers to one of the previously recited “pair of elongated tool levers,” or if a new structure is being introduced into the claim language. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that “a respective tool lever” refers to one of the previously recited “pair of elongated tool levers.”
[Claim 3] The claim recites the limitation of “the lever sections” in the 3rd line of the claim. The examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim, since it is unclear if “the lever sections” refers to a proximal and distal lever section on one of the previously recited tool levers, two proximal lever sections on two tool levers, two distal lever sections on two tool levers, or a proximal lever section on a tool lever and a distal lever section on the opposing tool lever. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that any of these scenarios meets the claim limitations.
[Claim 7] The claim recites the limitation of “the first-mentioned gripping element” in the 2nd and 3rd line of the claim. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Further, the examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claims, since it is unclear if this limitation refers to the previously recited “gripping element,” or if any additional structure is being introduced into the claim language. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the limitation refers to the previously recited “gripping element” introduced in claim 1.
[Claim 9] The claim recites the limitation of “said tool handles” in the 2nd line of the claim. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim, since it is unclear if the claim was intended to depend from claim 8 (thereby providing antecedent basis), or if a new structure is being introduced into the claims. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that claim 9 depends directly from claim 8.
[Claim 22] The claim recites the limitation of “the jaws of pivotally-attached tool levers” in the 3rd and 4th lines of the claim. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, the examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim, since it is unclear if this structure refers to the previously recited “medical adapter gripping tool,” or if an additional “tool” is being introduced into the claim language. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the limitation refers to the previously recited “medical adapter gripping tool.”
[Claim 23] The claim recites the limitation of “the lever sections” in the 3rd line of the claim. The examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim, since it is unclear if “the lever sections” refers to a proximal and distal lever section on one of the previously recited tool levers, two proximal lever sections on two tool levers, two distal lever sections on two tool levers, or a proximal lever section on a tool lever and a distal lever section on the opposing tool lever. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that any of these scenarios meets the claim limitations.
[Claim 23] The claim recites the limitation of “the force” in the 4th line of the claim. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Furthermore, the examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claims, since it is unclear if this limitation refers to the previously recited “gripping force,” or if an additional “force” is being introduced into the claim limitations. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that “the force” refers to the previously recited “gripping force.”
[Claims 2-12] The claims are rejected based upon their dependence from independent claim 1.
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 1-10, 22, and 23, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doell et al. (PGPub 2017/0157358).
[Claims 1, 22, and 23] Doell teaches a medical adapter gripping tool (figure 3, item 1) operable to removably hold a catheter element (figure 7, item 16) (the examiner notes the “catheter element” is not a positively recited claim limitation), said medical adapter gripping tool (figure 3, item 1) comprising:
a pair of elongated tool levers (figure 3, items 2/2’) each including a longitudinally extending lever body (figure 3, items 12/12’) and presenting opposite lever ends (figure 3, near item 4 and figure 3, items 10/10’) (paragraph [0029]),
said tool levers (figure 3, items 2/2’) being pivotally attached relative to one another at a pivot joint (figure 3, item 4) that permits the tool levers (figure 3, items 2/2’) to swing relative to each other about a lateral pivot axis (figure 3, at item 4), with the tool levers (figure 3, items 2/2’) being relatively swingable into and out of a closed position to grip the catheter element (figure 7, item 16) (paragraph [0030]),
each of said tool levers (figure 3, items 2/2’) defining a jaw (figure 3, items 6/6’) located between the lever ends (figure 3, near item 4 and figure 3, items 10/10’) (figure 3; paragraph [0029]),
said jaws (figure 3, items 6/6’) being opposed and swingable toward and away from each other (paragraph [0029]), with the jaws (figure 3, items 6/6’) cooperatively engaging the catheter element (figure 7, item 16) in the closed position (figure 7),
a respective tool lever (figure 3, items 2/2’) including a gripping element (figure 3, item 8) supported by and cooperating with the respective lever body (figure 3, items 12/12’) to form a corresponding jaw (figure 3, items 6/6’) (paragraph [0029]), with the gripping element (figure 3, item 8) presenting an exposed gripping surface (figure 3; paragraphs [0029], [0030]),
said gripping element (figure 3, item 8) comprising a resilient gripping element material (paragraphs [0027], [0032]), with the gripping element (figure 3, item 8) operable to resiliently flex for conforming with part of the catheter element (figure 7, item 16) and restricting the gripping force applied by the jaws (figure 3, items 6/6’) when the catheter element (figure 7, item 16) is held by the jaws (figure 3, items 6/6’) in the closed position (figure 7; paragraph [0034]).
[Claim 2] Doell teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends. In addition, Doell discloses said respective lever body (figure 3, items 12/12’) including an outer jaw margin (see annotated figure below) (the examiner notes this can be considered any part of the structure that is not the gripping element) that extends at least partly around the gripping element (figure 3, item 8).
[Claims 3-6] Doell teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which claims 3-6 depend. Doell also teaches at least one of said tool levers (figure 3, items 2/2’) including proximal and distal lever sections (figure 3; any division of the “tool” levers can be deemed as a proximal and distal section) and a resilient hinge (figure 3, item 4) that joins the lever sections (see 112b interpretation above) and permits relative flexing between the lever sections (figure 3; any division of the “tool” levers can be deemed as a proximal and distal section) about a lateral flexing axis to restrict the gripping force applied by the jaws (figure 3, items 6/6’) in the closed position (paragraph [0033]);
said respective lever body (figure 3, items 12/12’) including an outer jaw margin (see annotated figure below) (the examiner notes this can be considered any part of the structure that is not the gripping element) that extends at least partly around the gripping element (figure 3, item 8),
said outer jaw margin (see annotated figure below) of the respective lever body (figure 3, items 12/12’) at least partly defining the resilient hinge (figure 3, item 4);
said resilient hinge (figure 3, item 4) including a living hinge at least partly provided by the outer jaw margin (see annotated figure below) (figure 3); and
said gripping element (figure 3, item 8) being integrally formed with the outer jaw margin (see annotated figure below) (figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
791
1010
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[Claim 7] Doell teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 7 depends. Doell further discloses said tool levers (figure 3, items 2/2’) including opposed flexible gripping elements (figure 3, item 8), which include the first-mentioned gripping element (figure 3, item 8) (figure 3),
each of said gripping elements (figure 3, item 8) supported by and cooperating with the respective lever body (figure 3, items 12/12’) to form a corresponding jaw (figure 3, items 6/6’) (paragraph [0029]), with each gripping element (figure 3, item 8) presenting an exposed gripping surface (figure 3; paragraphs [0029], [0030]).
[Claim 8] Doell teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 8 depends. In addition, Doell teaches each of said tool levers (figure 3, items 2/2’) including a tool handle (figure 3, section of tool lever comprising items 14/14’; paragraph [0030]),
said lever ends (figure 3, near item 4 and figure 3, items 10/10’) of each tool lever (figure 3, items 2/2’) comprising proximal (figure 3, items 10/10’) and distal lever ends (figure 3, near item 4), with the tool handles (figure 3, section of tool lever comprising items 14/14’) extending adjacent the respective proximal lever ends (figure 3, items 10/10’) and the pivot joint (figure 3, item 4) located adjacent to the distal lever ends (figure 3, near item 4).
[Claim 9] Doell teaches the limitations of claim 8, upon which claim 9 depends (see 112b interpretation above). Doell also discloses said tool handles (figure 3, section of tool lever comprising items 14/14’) each including a stop element (interior portions of section of tool lever comprising items 14/14’), with the stop elements (interior portions of section of tool lever comprising items 14/14’) engaging one another in the closed position to restrict the gripping force applied by the jaws (figure 3, items 6/6’).
[Claim 10] Doell teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 10 depends. Doell further discloses a spring (paragraph [0033]) interconnecting the tool levers (figure 3, items 2/2’) and providing the pivot joint (figure 3, item 4), with the spring urging the tool levers (figure 3, items 2/2’) out of the closed position (paragraph [0033]).
Claims 1-4, 7, 22 and 23, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tamrazi et al. (PGPub 2018/0021507).
[Claims 1, 22, and 23] Tamrazi teaches a medical adapter gripping tool (figure 5, item 1) operable to removably hold a catheter element (figure 4, item 7) (the examiner notes the “catheter element” is not a positively recited claim limitation), said medical adapter gripping tool (figure 5, item 1) comprising:
a pair of elongated tool levers (figure 5, items 2/5 and items 3/6) each including a longitudinally extending lever body (figure 5, items 5 and 6) and presenting opposite lever ends (figure 5, near 5/8 and near 6/9),
said tool levers (figure 5, items 2/5 and items 3/6) being pivotally attached relative to one another at a pivot joint (figure 5, item 18) that permits the tool levers (figure 5, items 2/5 and items 3/6) to swing relative to each other about a lateral pivot axis (figure 5; paragraph [0045]), with the tool levers (figure 5, items 2/5 and items 3/6) being relatively swingable into and out of a closed position to grip the catheter element (figure 4, item 7) (figure 5; paragraph [0045]),
each of said tool levers (figure 5, items 2/5 and items 3/6) defining a jaw (figure 5, item 2 and item 3) located between the lever ends (figure 5, near 5/8 and near 6/9),
said jaws (figure 5, item 2 and item 3) being opposed and swingable toward and away from each other (figure 5; paragraph [0045]), with the jaws (figure 5, item 2 and item 3) cooperatively engaging the catheter element (figure 4, item 7) in the closed position (figure 5; paragraph [0045]),
a respective tool lever (figure 5, items 2/5 and items 3/6) including a gripping element (figure 5, items 14/15) supported by and cooperating with the respective lever body (figure 5, items 5 and 6) to form a corresponding jaw (figure 5, item 2 and item 3), with the gripping element (figure 5, items 14/15) presenting an exposed gripping surface (as best shown in figure 3),
said gripping element (figure 5, items 14/15) comprising a resilient gripping element material (paragraph [0049]), with the gripping element (figure 5, items 14/15) operable to resiliently flex for conforming with part of the catheter element (figure 4, item 7) and restricting the gripping force applied by the jaws (figure 5, item 2 and item 3) when the catheter element (figure 4, item 7) is held by the jaws (figure 5, item 2 and item 3) in the closed position (paragraph [0049]).
[Claim 2] Tamrazi teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends. In addition, Tamrazi discloses said respective lever body (figure 5, items 5 and 6) including an outer jaw margin (see annotated figure below) (the examiner notes this can be considered any part of the structure that is not the gripping element) that extends at least partly around the gripping element (figure 5, items 14/15).
PNG
media_image2.png
643
909
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[Claims 3 and 4] Tamrazi teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which claims 3 and 4 depend. Tamrazi also teaches at least one of said tool levers (figure 5, items 2/5 and items 3/6) including proximal and distal lever sections (figure 5; any division of the “tool” levers can be deemed as a proximal and distal section) and a resilient hinge (figure 5, item 4) that joins the lever sections (see 112b interpretation above) and permits relative flexing between the lever sections (figure 5; any division of the “tool” levers can be deemed as a proximal and distal section) about a lateral flexing axis to restrict the gripping force applied by the jaws (figure 5, item 2 and item 3) in the closed position (paragraph [0045]);
said respective lever body (figure 5, items 5 and 6) including an outer jaw margin (see annotated figure above) (the examiner notes this can be considered any part of the structure that is not the gripping element) that extends at least partly around the gripping element (figure 5, items 14/15),
said outer jaw margin (see annotated figure above) of the respective lever body (figure 5, items 5 and 6) at least partly defining the resilient hinge (figure 5, item 4).
[Claim 7] Tamrazi teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 7 depends. Tamrazi further discloses said tool levers (figure 5, items 2/5 and items 3/6) including opposed flexible gripping elements (figure 5, items 14/15), which include the first-mentioned gripping element (figure 5, items 14/15),
each of said gripping elements (figure 5, items 14/15) supported by and cooperating with the respective lever body (figure 5, items 5 and 6) to form a corresponding jaw (figure 5, item 2 and item 3), with each gripping element (figure 5, items 14/15) presenting an exposed gripping surface (as best shown in figure 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 08/07/2026
Prosecution Insights