Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/810,632

CLIP FOR ENDOSCOPE

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Aug 21, 2024
Examiner
GEIGER, RACHAEL L
Art Unit
3771
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Olympus Medical Systems Corp.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
93 granted / 109 resolved
+15.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
137
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
§103
45.6%
+5.6% vs TC avg
§102
34.1%
-5.9% vs TC avg
§112
16.6%
-23.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 109 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 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, 2, 5, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gregan et al. (US 20190150929 A1). Regarding claim 1, Gregan discloses a clip (Fig. 1a-1b), comprising: a first arm 10 extending in a longitudinal direction of the clip (Fig. 1a-1b), the first arm including: a first body 150 (i.e., Fig. 3) having a distal end (i.e., at 154); a first claw 156 projecting from the distal end of the first body (Fig. 3), and a first anchor 157 projecting from the distal end of the first body (Fig. 3 shows 157 that extends outward from a distal end portion of the clip); and a second arm 160 extending in the longitudinal direction of the clip (Fig. 3), wherein, in a direction that intersects the longitudinal direction of the clip, a width of the first anchor is less than a width of the first claw (i.e., intersecting the longitudinal axis of Fig. 3 would show a width of the first anchor 157 is less than a width of the first claw 156). Regarding claim 2, Gregan discloses the clip of claim 1. Gregan also discloses comprising a tube 42 configured to accommodate the first arm and the second arm (para. [0108]), wherein, when the first arm and the second arm are in a closed position, a distance between a distal end of the first anchor and a distal end of the second anchor is less than a diameter of the tube (para. [0108] discloses the grab portion 12 being inside sheath 42 such that the distance between a distal end of the first anchor and a distal end of the second anchor is less than a diameter of the tube). Regarding claim 5, Gregan discloses the clip of claim 1. Gregan also discloses the first claw has a proximal end attached to the distal end of the first body (Fig. 3), wherein the first anchor has a proximal end attached to the distal end of the first body (Fig. 3), and wherein, in the direction that intersects the longitudinal direction of the clip, the proximal end of the first claw and the proximal end of the first anchor are aligned (i.e., at least in the closed configuration the proximal ends would be aligned by virtue of both being connected along 150). Regarding claim 7, Gregan discloses the clip of claim 1. Gregan also discloses the first claw includes a first claw first section (i.e., that extends from 150 all the way to 154) and a first claw second section (i.e., that extends from the distal end of 150 radially inward at 156). Regarding claim 8, Gregan discloses the clip of claim 7. Gregan also discloses in the direction that intersects the longitudinal direction of the clip, the width of the first claw is a sum of a width of the first claw first section and a width of the first claw second section (Fig. 3; i.e., in the direction that intersects the longitudinal axis, the width of the claw is the sum of the two claw sections). Regarding claim 9, Gregan discloses the clip of claim 7. Gregan also discloses in the direction that intersects the longitudinal direction of the clip, the first claw first section is spaced apart from the first claw second section (i.e., at least since the first claw second section extends radially inward). Claims 1, 3, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilson (US 2,111,161 A). Regarding claim 1, Wilson discloses a clip (Fig. 1), comprising: a first arm 5 extending in a longitudinal direction of the clip (Fig. 1), the first arm including: a first body 5’ having a distal end (Fig. 1); a first claw 10 projecting from the distal end of the first body (Fig. 1), and a first anchor 12 projecting from the distal end of the first body (Fig. 1); and a second arm 6 extending in the longitudinal direction of the clip (Fig. 1), wherein, in a direction that intersects the longitudinal direction of the clip, a width of the first anchor is less than a width of the first claw (i.e., intersecting the longitudinal axis of Fig. 1 would show a width of the first anchor 12 is less than a width of the first claw 10 at least since 12 extends from the body of 10). Regarding claim 3, Wilson discloses the clip of claim 1. Wilson also discloses in the direction that intersects the longitudinal direction of the clip, a width of the first body equals the width of the first claw (i.e., at least because the claw 10 is monolithically formed with 5 and would have the same width). Regarding claim 15, Wilson discloses the clip of claim 1. Wilson also discloses a longitudinal axis of the first claw is oriented at a first angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the first body (i.e., 12 extends from the longitudinal axis at a first angle), wherein a longitudinal axis of first anchor is oriented at a second angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the first body (i.e., 10 is curved inward and as such exhibits a second angle), and wherein the first angle is smaller than the second angle (see Fig. 1). Regarding claim 16, Wilson discloses the clip of claim 15. Wilson also discloses wherein the first angle and the second angle face towards the second arm (i.e., 12 is extending from 10 more radially inward than if it had extended from 5’ and as such is positioned toward the second arm as shown in Fig. 1). Regarding claim 17, Wilson discloses the clip of claim 15. Wilson also discloses wherein a sum of the first angle and the second angle is less than 180 degrees (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 18, Wilson discloses the clip of claim 1. Wilson also discloses in a view along the direction that intersects the longitudinal direction of the clip, a distal end of the first anchor and a distal end of the first claw are separated by a gap (Fig. 1 at least since the distal end of 10 is closer to the longitudinal axis through the center of the device). Regarding claim 19, Wilson discloses the clip of claim 1. Wilson also discloses the second arm includes: a second body 6’ having a distal end (Fig. 1); a second claw10 projecting from the distal end of the second body (Fig. 1), and a second anchor 12 projecting from the distal end of the second body (Fig 1). Regarding claim 20, Wilson discloses the clip of claim 19. Wilson also discloses wherein, in the direction that intersects the longitudinal direction of the clip, a width of the second anchor is less than a width of the second claw (Fig. 1). Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by an alternate interpretation of Wilson (US 2,111,161 A). Regarding claim 1, Wilson discloses a clip (Fig. 1), comprising: a first arm 5 extending in a longitudinal direction of the clip (Fig. 1), the first arm including: a first body 5’ having a distal end (Fig. 1); a first claw 12 projecting from the distal end of the first body (Fig. 1), and a first anchor 10 projecting from the distal end of the first body (Fig. 1); and a second arm 6 extending in the longitudinal direction of the clip (Fig. 1), wherein, in a direction that intersects the longitudinal direction of the clip, a width of the first anchor is less than a width of the first claw (i.e., intersecting the longitudinal axis of Fig. 1 would show a width of the first anchor 10 is less than a width of the first claw 12 at least since the anchor portion 10 is less than 12 as shown below). PNG media_image1.png 516 817 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 4, Wilson discloses the clip of claim 1. Wilson also discloses the first anchor has a proximal end and a distal end (Fig. 1), the proximal end attached to the distal end of the first body (Fig. 1), and wherein, in the direction that intersects the longitudinal direction of the clip, a width of the distal end of the first anchor is less than a width of the proximal end of the first anchor (i.e., by way of it being pointed as shown in Fig. 1). Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by an alternate interpretation of Sugitani et al. (US 2021/0106335). Regarding claim 1, Sugitani discloses a clip 1, comprising: a first arm 22 extending in a longitudinal direction of the clip (Fig. 1), the first arm including: a first body 22 having a distal end (Fig. 1); a first claw (i.e., distal end of 22b that extends into the claw), and a first anchor 23 projecting from the distal end of the first body (Fig. 1); and a second arm 22 extending in the longitudinal direction of the clip (Fig. 1), wherein, in a direction that intersects the longitudinal direction of the clip, a width of the first anchor is less than a width of the first claw (i.e., due to the distally tapering shape of the first anchor and first claw, at least some width can be taken at the distal end of the first anchor that would be less than a width taken towards a proximal end of the first claw). Regarding claim 6, Sugitani discloses the clip of claim 1. Sugitani also discloses the first claw has a proximal end attached to the distal end of the first body (Fig. 1) and the first anchor has a proximal end attached to the distal end of the first body (Fig. 1), wherein, in the longitudinal direction of the clip: a distance between a proximal end of the first body and the proximal end of the first claw defines a first claw distance (Fig. 1), a distance between the proximal end of the first body and the proximal end of the first anchor defines a first anchor distance (Fig. 1), and wherein the first claw distance and the first anchor distance, are equal (i.e., at least since they are sandwiched such that the distance is equal). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10-14 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. Regarding claim 10, Gregan discloses the elements of claim 9. Gregan fails to directly disclose in the direction that intersects the longitudinal direction of the clip, the first anchor is located between the first claw first section and the first claw second section. The device of Gregan could not be modified to include disclose in the direction that intersects the longitudinal direction of the clip, the first anchor is located between the first claw first section and the first claw second section without significantly altering the function of the device or completely re-designing the device. Claims 11-14 are allowable at least for their dependency on claim 10. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 21, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588923
DEVICE FOR PERFORMING A COSMETIC OR MEDICAL PROCEDURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569361
DEVICES AND METHODS TO TREAT AND PREVENT DIVERTICULITIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564412
PERCUTANEOUS ACCESS PATHWAY SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558103
REPAIR ASSEMBLY AND REPAIR ASSEMBLY IMPLANTATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12539108
MEDICAL DEVICES AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+14.1%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 109 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