Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/901,909

OVER THE SCOPE CLIP

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Sep 30, 2024
Examiner
TON, MARTIN TRUYEN
Art Unit
3771
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
319 granted / 521 resolved
-8.8% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+34.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
569
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
48.0%
+8.0% vs TC avg
§102
26.7%
-13.3% vs TC avg
§112
18.9%
-21.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 521 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
DETAILED ACTION The following Office Action is in response to the Response to Restriction filed on February 11, 2026. Claims 14-26 are currently pending. 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 of Group I in the reply filed on February 11, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 27-37 were cancelled. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 11, 2026. 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: “locking mechanism” in claim 14. The locking mechanism is disclosed as having several different structures as shown in Figures 3A-14 with descriptions of each structure disclosed in the Specification. 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 Objections Claims 15, 24, and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities: Concerning claim 15, lines 2-3 of the claim recites the phrase “a locking member configured to be into the recess”, wherein a phrase appears to be missing a word between “configured to be” and “into the recess”. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the phrase will be interpreted as reading “configured to be placed into the recess”. Concerning claim 24, lines 5-7 of the claim recites the phrase “being compressible to a reduced diameter configuration in which the first compressible member is substantially pressed against an outer surface of the first extending member to an expanded configuration”, which essentially says “compressible to a reduced diameter configuration to an expanded configuration”, wherein it should read “from an expanded configuration”. Concerning claim 26, lines 2-3 of the claim recites the phrase “to move the first gripping member proximally within the second tapered opening forces the radially inner surface”, wherein there appears to be the word “and” missing between “the second tapered opening” and “forces”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saenz Villalobos et al. (US 2023/0277194, hereinafter Saenz Villalobos). Concerning claim 14, the Saenz Villalobos et al. prior art reference teaches a system for clipping tissue (Figures 1-17; 100), comprising: an adapter (Figure 1; 110) including a proximal portion (Figure 2; 153) configured to be mounted over a distal end of an insertion device (Figure 2; 106) and a distal portion extending distally from the proximal portion (Figure 2; 155); a clip configured to be mounted over the distal portion of the adapter (Figure 1; 102), the clip including first and second jaws (Figure 1; 114) configured to move between an insertion configuration, in which the first and second jaws extend about the adapter and are separated from one another to receive tissue therebetween ([¶ 0017]), and an initial deployed configuration, in which the clip is moved distally off of the adapter so that the first and second jaws are drawn toward one another to grip tissue received therebetween ([¶ 0017]); a first extending member releasably coupled to the clip and movably connected to the adapter (Figure 1; extending member = inner sheath 122| [¶ 0054]), the extending member extending from a proximal portion configured to remain, in an operative configuration, outside a patient’s body to a distal portion configured to be coupled to a distal end of the insertion device ([¶ 0019]); a first control wire slidably received within the first extending member (Figure 1; control wire = extending member 112) and extending to a distal end releasably coupled to the clip via a first releasable link (Figure 6; 116) being configured to release when the first control wire is subject to a force exceeding a predetermined threshold value ([¶ 0050]), and a first locking mechanism configured to selectively lock the distal portion of the first extending member against proximal movement relative to the adapter during release of the first releasable link ([¶ 0084], inner sheaths may be locked to remain stationary, therein selectively locking against all movement including proximal movement). Concerning claim 15, the Saenz Villalobos reference teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the first extending member includes a recess (Figure 10; coil holder 182 may be interpreted as being part of the first extending member, wherein coil holder includes recess 186) and wherein the first locking mechanism includes a locking member (Figure 10; 190) configured to be pushed into the recess of the first extending member when the first extending is moved distally to a locking position (Figure 11). Concerning claim 16, the Saenz Villalobos reference teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the first locking mechanism includes a first biasing member abutting the first locking member (Figure 14; 178), the first biasing member being biased to urge the locking member against the first extending member so that, when the first extending member is moved to the locking position, the first biasing member pushes the first locking member into the recess of the first extending member ([¶ 0087]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 17-26 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Sharma reference (US 2023/0225740) and the G et al. reference (US 2023/0181196) both teach over the scope clips that include locking mechanisms for locking extending members. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN TRUYEN TON whose telephone number is (571)270-5122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; EST 10:00 AM - 6:30 PM. 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 571-272-4695. 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. /MARTIN T TON/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 3/4/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 30, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599399
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING ACTIVE TISSUE SITE DEBRIDEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588990
DELIVERY APPARATUS FOR A PROSTHETIC HEART VALVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569691
ATRIAL APPENDAGE OCCLUSION AND ARRHYTHMIA TRATMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564456
MODULAR COLPOTOMY CUP COMPONENT FOR ROBOTICALLY CONTROLLED UTERINE MANIPULATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558185
GUIDING AND POSITIONING DEVICE FOR ASSISTING IN COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY-GUIDED NEEDLE BIOPSY (CT-GNB)
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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
61%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+34.2%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 521 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