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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 12 are amended, and claims 4-5 and 8-11 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, and 12 are pending in the application herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/29/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Niwa (EP 1 634 529 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. As discussed in the telephonic interview on 07/29/2026, the current rejection of record does not teach the amended claim limitations “a connector configured to be attached to a medical device including a tubular portion to be inserted into a body lumen, a body configured to be hung on a hanger and connected to the connector along an axial direction; and a protrusion, which together with the body, forms a slit at a region between the body and the connector, the slit extending in a direction orthogonal to the axial direction and allowing the tubular portion to be inserted therein…” Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Maruyama (US 2008/0208002).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 6-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwa (EP 1 634 529 A1), herein after “Niwa”, in view of Maruyama (US 2008/0208002), herein after “Maruyama”.
Regarding claim 1, Niwa teaches
“A medical-device holder comprising (Fig. 10): a connector configured to be attached to a medical device (Fig. 1) including a tubular portion (1 in Fig. 8) to be inserted into a body lumen (Fig. 1)”,
“a protrusion (20, Fig. 2), which together with the body, forms a slit (22) at a region between the body and the connector, the slit extending in a direction orthogonal to the axial direction and allowing the tubular portion (1) to be inserted therein (Fig. 8)”
“a surrounding portion around the slit is configured (22a; Examiner interprets the element being able to accept the portion but does not interpret surround to mean enclose), to deform elastically to come in close contact with the tubular portion inserted in the slit (1b) such that the tubular portion is held due to frictional resistance on a closely contacted portion between the surrounding portion around the slit and the tubular portion (p.[0023] in combination with Fig. 3, see also Fig. 8 and p.[0044])”.
Niwa does not teach “a body configured to be hung on a hanger and connected to the connector along an axial direction”, but Maruyama does in an analogous medical-device hanging invention. Maruyama teaches “a body configured to be hung on a hanger and connected to the connector along an axial direction (Fig. 10, wherein the body is 24 and a hanger is holding member 32, see further in p.[0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Maruyama in view of Niwa. The use of the body and hanging portion allows for the device to be strategically placed in a desired location to prevent damage to the medical device and produces predictable results of allowing the device to be stored in various areas (p.[0050-0052]).
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Niwa does not teach the “body” as described above (Maruyama does in Fig. 10, as described above), but Niwa does show a body (20) on a hanger (30) in Figure 8, with the surrounding portion 22a configured to deform elastically as described in p.[0022-0023], and that the entire structure 20 can be made of an elastic material (and is capable of creating friction as elastic material can deform when placed under load, see p.[0044]). It is the Examiner's position that the system of Niwa would accomplish the claimed limitation of deforming the slit elastically in the presence of a weight (such as from a medical device in the same slit as the tubular portion) as Niwa describes an inset opening that can accomplish elastic deformation when an object (such as a medical device) is acted upon it. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place and hold a medical device in the slit of Niwa/Maruyama via elastic deformation of the surrounding portion of the slit. Niwa contemplates that the slit is originally intended for the holding of a probe/tubing, but could be modified to hold a therapeutic device such as grasping forceps (p.[0044]) and such a modification would produce predictable results of a similar medical device via elastic deformation of the surrounding portion of the slit.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Niwa teaches that the surrounding portion 22a is elastic (see p.[0044])) and elastically deforms when the tubular portion 1 is inserted into the slit 22 in order to hold the tubular portion in p.[0022-0024] and therefore teaches the claimed limitation as described.
Regarding claim 6 and 12, the limitations of claim 2 are taught as described above. Niwa shows the a slit has a width narrower than the outer diameter of the tubular portion in Figure 2, 3, and 10 and therefore teaches the claimed limitation as described.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Niwa teaches that the device is formed of an elastomer resin in p.[0044] which states that “The holding device… is formed of an elastic material” therefore teaching the claimed invention.
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 Abigail M Bock whose telephone number is (571)272-8856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at (617) 320-2637. 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.
/ABIGAIL BOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights