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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “the preset self-locking angle range” without antecedent basis for the preset self-locking angle range. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
releasing members in claim 7 which will be interpreted as any mechanism detachably connected to the sliding slot pin as disclosed by para. [0023]
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 5-6, 9-13 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.
Specifically, claims 5 and 12 recite “from near to far.” It is unknown what the Applicant is trying to claim and what “near” or “far” is referenced to, nor what “near” or “far” means.
Claim 6 is rejected for its dependency on claim 5.
Regarding claim 9, it is unknown what “wherein at least part of projection of profile of a motion path of each of the releasing members” is intending to recite. Specifically, it appears that “at least a part of projection” is a structural piece of the releasing members, but it is unknown how that structural piece is also “of profile of a motion path” since “a profile of a motion path” appears to be a range of motion. As such, it is unknown whether the Applicant is intending to recite a physical part or a range of motion. Due to the lack of clarity, Examiner is unable to examine claims 9-10.
Claim 10 is rejected for its dependency on claim 9.
Claims 11 and 13 recite farthest end. It is unknown what Applicant intends to recite as being the farthest end since the Applicant has failed to provide a reference point to which the structure is at the farthest end of (i.e., proximal end of the releasing members, distal end of device, etc.)
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 1-5, 7, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shindo et al. (US 20230263533 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shindo discloses a three-arm clip (Fig. 2), comprising a clamping component 1, wherein the clamping component comprises a fixed portion 2 and two movable arms 31, 32 rotationally connected to the fixed portion (para. [0052]), and the movable arms have an open state (para. [0049]), a closed state (Fig. 2) and a self-locking state (i.e., when the most proximal portion of 320 is engaged; see Figs. 4-6; i.e., Fig. 5, 511 is engaged); the clamping component further comprises two sliding slot pins 511, 521 each of the movable arms is provided with a first sliding slot 310, 320, the fixed portion is provided with a guiding slot 23 extending in a distal-proximal direction (Fig. 7), wherein when the movable arms are in the closed state, an extending direction of the first sliding slot is inclined relative to an extending direction of the guiding slot (Fig. 22 shows slot inclined); each of the sliding slot pins is provided in the first sliding slot and the guiding slot (para. [0074], [0095]), and along the guiding slot, by driving the sliding slot pins (paras. [0074], [0095]), the movable arms can be driven to be switched between the closed state and the open state (i.e., as shown in Figs. 14-19); and each of the movable arms is provided with a self-locking slot (i.e., as shown in Fig. 5; the inclined slot is connected to the self-locking slot), a distal end of the self-locking slot communicates with a proximal end of the first sliding slot (Fig. 6); and along the guiding slot (Fig. 5), when each of the sliding slot pins slides from the proximal end of the first sliding slot to a proximal end of the self-locking slot, the movable arm is switched from the closed state (i.e., as shown in Fig. 11) to the self-locking state (i.e., pushed all the way back such as for example Fig. 2 for example that shows a fully pinched and locked position).
Regarding claim 2, Shindo discloses the three-arm clip according to claim 1. Shindo also discloses wherein when each of the movable arms is in the self-locking state, an axis b of the sliding slot pin is located on a central plane of the guiding slot (i.e., see Fig. 2 for example such that axis b is the slot), wherein a central line of the guiding slot is located on the central plane (Fig. 2), and an opening-closing direction of each of the movable arms is perpendicular to the central plane (i.e., see for example Fig. 3); when each of the movable arm is in the self-locking state, a distal midpoint a of the self-locking slot is located on the central plane (Fig. 2 where 512 is); or a distal midpoint a of the self-locking slot and a distal midpoint c of the first sliding slot are located on two opposite sides of the central plane, respectively; or the distal midpoint a of the self-locking slot and the distal midpoint c of the first sliding slot are located on the same side of the central plane, and an included angle β between a connecting line between the distal midpoint a of the self-locking slot and the axis b of the sliding slot pin and the central plane is within a preset self-locking angle range (i.e., as shown in Fig. 2); and each of the sliding slot pins is located in the self-locking slot and makes the movable arms maintain the self-locking state relative to the fixed portion through the guiding slot (Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 3, Shindo discloses the three-arm clip according to claim 2. Shindo also discloses wherein when each of the movable arms is in the self-locking state, the distal midpoint a of the self-locking slot and the distal midpoint c of the first sliding slot are located on the same side of the central plane (Fig. 2), and the included angle β between the connecting line between the distal midpoint a of the self-locking slot and the axis b of the sliding slot pin and the central plane is within the preset self-locking angle range (Fig. 2); and a value range of the preset self-locking angle β is 0-8° (i.e., the angle is 0 at least because it extends longitudinally).
Regarding claim 4, Shindo discloses the three-arm clip according to claim 1. Shindo also discloses wherein the fixed portion comprises a fixed arm extending in the distal-proximal direction (Fig. 7), and each of the movable arms is rotationally connected to the fixed arm (para. [0052], [0095]); and the guiding slot comprises a second sliding slot provided on the fixed arm (i.e., 23 is the second sliding slot), wherein the second sliding slot runs through each side of the fixed arm (Fig. 7), and tail ends of the sliding slot pins corresponding to the two movable arms extend into the second sliding slot from each side of the fixed arm respectively (para. [0074], [0095]).
Regarding claim 5, Shindo discloses the three-arm clip according to claim 1. Shindo also discloses wherein the fixed portion comprises a fixed arm extending in the distal-proximal direction (Fig. 7), and each of the movable arms is rotationally connected to the fixed arm (para. [0052], [0095]); the fixed portion further comprises two covers (i.e., 4 on either side of 41) extending from near to far, the two covers are provided on each side of the fixed arm (Figs. 10-11) and cover at least part of the two movable arms rotatably set on each side of the fixed arm (Figs. 10-11); and the guiding slot comprises a third sliding slot 41 provided on a surface of each of the covers facing the fixed arm (Fig. 2), and a top end (i.e., 311 is interpreted as being a top end) of each of the sliding slot pins is connected slidably in the third sliding slot (Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 7, Shindo discloses the three-arm clip according to claim 1. Shindo also discloses wherein the fixed portion comprises a fixed arm extending in the distal-proximal direction (Fig. 7), the fixed arm is provided with shafts (i.e., shafts interpreted as 22, 21 as also defined by the specification at [0072] and shown in Fig. 4 of applicant’s disclosure such that the shafts are just holes), and the movable arms are rotationally connected to the fixed arm through the shafts (paras. [0071]-[0073]); the three-arm clip further comprises releasing members 51, 52, wherein each of the releasing members is detachably connected to the sliding slot pin (para. [0078] i.e., at least by removing the pin), and each of the releasing members is capable of driving the sliding slot pin to move along the guiding slot (para. [0078], [0093]), so that the sliding slot pin moves in the first sliding slot and the self-locking slot (Figs. 2-5); and each of the shafts is located outside a movement path of the releasing member (Figs. 2-5).
Regarding claim 11, Shindo discloses the three-arm clip according to claim 7. Shindo also discloses wherein the farthest end of a movement path of each of the releasing members goes beyond a position where the shaft is located (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Shindo discloses the three-arm clip according to claim 8. Shindo also discloses wherein the farthest end of a movement path of each of the releasing members goes beyond a position where the shaft is located (Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindo
Regarding claim 8, Shindo discloses the three-arm clip according to claim 1. Shindo also discloses wherein the fixed portion comprises a fixed arm extending in the distal-proximal direction (Fig. 7), the fixed arm is provided with holes (i.e., 22, 21), and each of the movable arms is provided with a shaft 211, 221 connected with the hole (see for example Fig. 2), and each of the movable arms is rotationally connected to the fixed arm through the hole (Figs. 2-5); the three-arm clip further comprises releasing members 51, 52, wherein each of the releasing members is detachably connected to the sliding slot pin (i.e., at least during assembly), and each of the releasing members is capable of driving the sliding slot pin to move along the guiding slot (para. [0078], [0093]), so that the sliding slot pin moves in the first sliding slot and the self-locking slot (Figs. 2-5); and a depth of the hole is greater than or equal to a height of the shaft (Fig. 2), so that a top end of the shaft is lower than or flush with an outer side surface of the movable arm (Fig. 2).
Shindo doesn’t directly disclose:
the shafts are on the fixed arm and the holes are on the moveable arms
the shaft is lower than or flush with an outer side surface of the movable arm so as to prevent the shaft from interfering with movement of the releasing member.
Regarding i.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the holes and the shafts such that the resulting device would have the shafts are on the fixed arm and the holes are on the moveable arms because reversing the connection of the components for pivotability is well within the skill of those in the art and is a known mechanism. Furthermore, it has been held that “mere reversal of parts is a nonobvious modification of the prior art,” see In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A).
Regarding ii.
The device of Shindo is fully capable of having the shaft lower than or flush with an outer side surface of the movable arm so as to prevent the shaft from interfering with movement of the releasing member, if one desired to do so - note that the limitations of claim 8 are merely functional limitations and do not affect the structure of the claimed invention - 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) -see also MPEP 2114(11), which states that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Regarding claim 6, Shindo discloses the three-arm clip according to claim 5. Shindo doesn’t directly disclose wherein each of the sliding slot pins is provided with a cap on a top portion, and the cap is slidably provided in the third sliding slot; and the cap has a first guiding surface and a second guiding surface on two opposite sides, and the first guiding surface and the second guiding surface are respectively in sliding contact with two opposite slot walls of the third sliding slot.
Specifically, the device of Shindo could not be modified to include the above limitations without significantly altering the function of the device or completely re-designing the device.
Regarding claim 12, Shindo discloses the three-arm clip according to claim 4. Shindo also discloses wherein the fixed portion comprises a fixed arm 25 extending in the distal-proximal direction (Fig. 9), and each of the movable arms is rotationally connected to the fixed arm (i.e., Figs. 2-5); the fixed portion further comprises two covers 4 (i.e., each slide of cover being separated by slots 41 and as such is interpreted as two covers) extending from near to far (Fig. 5), the covers are provided on each side of the fixed arm (Fig. 5) and cover at least part of the two movable arms on each side of the fixed arm (Fig. 2).
Shindo fails to disclose: the guiding slot comprises a third sliding slot provided on a surface of each of the covers facing the fixed arm, and a top end of each of the sliding slot pins is connected slidably in the third sliding slot.
Specifically, the device of Shindo could not be modified to include the above limitations without significantly altering the function of the device or completely re-designing the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHAEL LYNN GEIGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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 5712724695. 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.
/RACHAEL L GEIGER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/BROOKE LABRANCHE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771