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 1,3, 5, 19, 23 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 oriented at a first angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the first body (see reproduced Fig. 2 below), 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 oriented at a second angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the first body (see reproduced Fig. 2 below); a second arm 160; and a holder 20 configured to accommodate a portion of the first arm and a portion of the second arm, wherein, in a direction that intersects the longitudinal direction of the clip, a width at the distal end of the first anchor is less than a width at a distal end 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), wherein the first angle is smaller than the second angle (Fig. 2 reproduced below), and wherein, when the first arm and the second arm are in a closed position, the first anchor is positioned distal to the holder (Fig. 7c).
PNG
media_image1.png
535
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Gregan discloses the clip of claim 1. Gregan 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 a portion since 154 is monolithically formed with 150 and would have the same width).
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 19, Gregan discloses the clip of claim 1. Wilson also discloses the second arm includes: a second body having a distal end (Fig. 2); a second claw 164 projecting from the distal end of the second body (Fig. 2) and oriented at a third angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the second body (i.e., similarly as reproduced above with regard to the first arm), and a second anchor 167 projecting from the distal end of the second body (Fig 2) and oriented at a fourth angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the second body (i.e., similarly as reproduced above with regard to the first arm), wherein the third angle is smaller than the fourth angle (see Fig. 2 reproduced above), and wherein a distance between a distal end of the first anchor and a distal end of a second anchor is less than a diameter of the holder (Fig. 7c).
Regarding claim 23, Gregan discloses the clip of claim 1. Gregan also discloses wherein, when the first arm and the second arm are locked in the closed position by the holder, the first anchor is positioned distal to the holder (Fig. 7c).
Claims 1, 4, 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) projecting from the distal end of the first body and oriented at a first angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the first body (i.e., Fig. 1), and a first anchor 23 projecting from the distal end of the first body (Fig. 1) and oriented at a second angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the first body (Fig. 1); a second arm 22; and a holder 24 configured to accommodate a portion of the first arm and a portion of the second arm (Fig. 2), wherein, in a direction that intersects the longitudinal direction of the clip, a width at a distal end of the first anchor is less than a width at a distal end of the first claw, wherein the first angle is smaller than the second angle (i.e., at least since the anchor is distal to the claw), and wherein the first arm and the second arm are in a closed position, the first anchor is positioned distal to the holder (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Sugitani discloses the clip of claim 1. Sugitani also discloses the first anchor has a proximal end and the 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).
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).
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.
Claims 24-26, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregan.
Regarding claim 24, Gregan discloses the clip of claim 1. Gregan doesn’t directly disclose wherein, in a direction intersecting both a longitudinal direction of the clip and an opening-and-closing direction of the clip, a width of the first anchor is less than a width of the first claw.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of being obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)), to obtain the predictable result of in a direction intersecting both a longitudinal direction of the clip and an opening-and-closing direction of the clip, a width of the first anchor is less than a width of the first claw since the only three choices are [1) in a direction intersecting both a longitudinal direction of the clip and an opening-and-closing direction of the clip, a width of the first anchor is less than a width of the first claw, 2) in a direction intersecting both a longitudinal direction of the clip and an opening-and-closing direction of the clip, a width of the first anchor is greater than a width of the first claw, or 3) in a direction intersecting both a longitudinal direction of the clip and an opening-and-closing direction of the clip, a width of the first anchor is the same as a width of the first claw]. These are the only three options apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, with there being no undue experimentation and there being a reasonable expectation of success at arriving at in a direction intersecting both a longitudinal direction of the clip and an opening-and-closing direction of the clip, a width of the first anchor is less than a width of the first claw.
Regarding claim 25, Gregan discloses a clip device, comprising: an applicator insertable into an endoscope (note: the device is capable of being used in an endoscope and the preamble is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention' s limitations); and a clip detachably connected to the applicator (same as above), wherein the clip comprises: an arm member having a first arm 150 and a second arm 160, and a holder 20 configured to accommodate a portion of the arm member (Fig. 7c), wherein the first arm includes: a first claw 154 provided at a distal end of the first arm (Fig. 3) and oriented at a first angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the first arm (Fig. 2 reproduced above), and a first anchor 157 provided at the distal end of the first arm and oriented at a second angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the first arm (Fig. 2 reproduced above),wherein the first angle is smaller than the second angle (Fig. 2 reproduced above), and wherein, when the arm member is in a closed position, the first anchor is positioned distal to the holder (Fig. 7c).
Gregan doesn’t directly disclose wherein, in a direction intersecting a longitudinal direction of the first arm, a width at a distal end of the first anchor is less than a width at a distal end of the first claw.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of being obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)), to obtain the predictable result of in a direction intersecting a longitudinal direction of the first arm, a width at a distal end of the first anchor is less than a width at a distal end of the first claw since the only three choices are [1) in a direction intersecting a longitudinal direction of the first arm, a width at a distal end of the first anchor is less than a width at a distal end of the first claw, 2) in a direction intersecting a longitudinal direction of the first arm, a width at a distal end of the first anchor is greater than a width at a distal end of the first claw, or 3) in a direction intersecting a longitudinal direction of the first arm, a width at a distal end of the first anchor is the same as a width at a distal end of the first claw]. These are the only three options apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, with there being no undue experimentation and there being a reasonable expectation of success at arriving at in a direction intersecting a longitudinal direction of the first arm, a width at a distal end of the first anchor is less than a width at a distal end of the first claw.
Regarding claim 26, Gregan discloses clip device of claim 25. Gregan also discloses wherein the first anchor has a proximal end and the distal end, the proximal end being attached to the distal end of the first arm (Fig. 3, note that under BRI the distal end can be the entire length from the anchor to the claw). Gregan doesn’t directly disclose: in a direction intersecting the longitudinal direction of the first arm, a width of the distal end of the first anchor is less than a width of the proximal end of the first anchor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of being obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)), to obtain the predictable result of i in a direction intersecting the longitudinal direction of the first arm, a width of the distal end of the first anchor is less than a width of the proximal end of the first anchor since the only three choices are [1) i in a direction intersecting the longitudinal direction of the first arm, a width of the distal end of the first anchor is less than a width of the proximal end of the first anchor, 2) in a direction intersecting the longitudinal direction of the first arm, a width of the distal end of the first anchor is greater than a width of the proximal end of the first anchor, or 3) in a direction intersecting the longitudinal direction of the first arm, a width of the distal end of the first anchor is the same as a width of the proximal end of the first anchor]. These are the only three options apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, with there being no undue experimentation and there being a reasonable expectation of success at arriving at in a direction intersecting the longitudinal direction of the first arm, a width of the distal end of the first anchor is less than a width of the proximal end of the first anchor.
Regarding claim 28, Gregan discloses the clip device of claim 25. Gregan also discloses wherein the second arm includes: a second claw 164 provided at a distal end of the second arm and oriented at a third angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the second arm (similar to Fig. 2 above), and a second anchor 167 provided at the distal end of the second arm and oriented at a fourth angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the second arm (similar to Fig. 2 above), wherein the third angle is smaller than the fourth angle (Fig. 2 above), and wherein 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 holder (Fig. 7c).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, 11, 14, 21-22, 27, 29-30 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 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) wherein, in a direction intersecting the longitudinal direction of the clip; the first claw first section is spaced apart from the first claw second section (Fig. 1), wherein, in a direction intersecting the longitudinal direction of the clip; the first claw first section is spaced apart from the first claw second section (Fig. 1). Gregan doesn’t directly disclose 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 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.
Claim 27 is allowable for the same reason as claim 7.
Claim 8, 11, 14, 21-22 are allowable for its dependency on claim 7. Claim 29-30 are allowable for their dependency on claim 27.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 04, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Regard to Gregan:
Applicant argues that Gregan does not disclose the first angle is smaller than the second angle. Examiner disagrees and points to reproduced Fig. 2 above. However, Examiner also notes that even if Applicant disagrees, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of being obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)), to obtain the predictable result of the first angle being smaller than the second angle since the only three choices are [1) the first angle is smaller than the second angle, 2) the first angle is larger than the second angle, or 3) the angles are the same]. These are the only three options apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, with there being no undue experimentation and there being a reasonable expectation of success at arriving at the first angle is smaller than the second angle.
With Regard to Wilson:
The rejections over Wilson are convincing and Wilson have been withdrawn.
With Regard to Sugitani:
Applicant’s argument that Sugitani fails to disclose the first angle is smaller than the second angle is not convincing. Examiner points to Figs 1-2 which shows a “stacked” arrangement of the claw and the anchor such that the anchor being on an outer surface of the claw would exhibit a larger angle. However, Examiner also notes that even if Applicant disagrees, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of being obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)), to obtain the predictable result of the first angle being smaller than the second angle since the only three choices are [1) the first angle is smaller than the second angle, 2) the first angle is larger than the second angle, or 3) the angles are the same]. These are the only three options apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, with there being no undue experimentation and there being a reasonable expectation of success at arriving at the first angle is smaller than the second angle.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights